in the Chair]

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that took place in Coolum, in Queensland, Australia, from 1 to 4 March. I pay warm tribute to Prime Minister John Howard and the Australian Government for the excellent arrangements for the meeting, and to John Howard personally for his patient and skilful chairmanship.

I also want to record how much the presence of Her Majesty the Queen meant to all the Heads of Government in this, her jubilee year. It provided an opportunity for us all to reflect on her remarkable contribution to the Commonwealth over the past 50 years. I shall be pleased to join Her Majesty for the observance service to celebrate Commonwealth day on Monday 11 March.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was due to take place last autumn. It was postponed because of the atrocious terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It was therefore entirely fitting that one of the major items of business at this week's meeting was the adoption of a Commonwealth plan of action on terrorism. That focuses on how to help member states, particularly smaller states, to fulfil their international obligations in fighting terrorism, including those provided for by United Nations Security Council resolution 1373.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government also adopted the report of the high-level review group established at the previous Heads of Government meeting in Durban in 1999. That report broadens the remit of the Commonwealth's ministerial-level watchdog, the Commonwealth ministerial action group, beyond the overthrow of democratically elected governments so that it will in future be able to examine crises other than those provoked by a coup d'état. It strengthens the good offices role of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, and streamlines the secretariat's structure.

The Heads of Government also established a high-level expert group to report on globalisation to the 2003 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. The high-level group report and the plan on terrorism are covered in the Coolum declaration, which was agreed by Heads of Government at the conference. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

Those useful developments strengthen the Common-wealth as an organisation committed to promoting democracy and good governance, economic development, and tolerance and racial harmony among its members. It is all the more deplorable therefore that one of those members, Zimbabwe, should have a President and a Government who are so clearly violating those core Commonwealth values.

The current crisis in Zimbabwe was extensively discussed. The violence and intimidation unleashed by President Mugabe in his desperation to prevent an Opposition victory in next weekend's presidential elections is totally unacceptable. So is the way in which he made it impossible for European Union observers to monitor next weekend's elections, obliging them to withdraw from Zimbabwe so that they could not document the abuses of the election campaign. There is no doubt about those abuses: those who are witnessing the campaign and who are still in Zimbabwe, detail horrific acts of violence and intimidation.

President Mugabe pretends that the current crisis has been prompted by the issue of land reform rather than by his determination to stay in power no matter what the verdict of the electorate. That is nothing more than a pretext. Successive British Governments have made clear their commitment to supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary repeated that commitment at the Abuja meeting in Nigeria last September. Indeed, since independence Britain has provided over £40 million specifically for land reform, and over £0.5 billion in development assistance.

However, our efforts, and those of the wider international community—including the United Nations Development Programme—have been thwarted by the political intransigence, and indeed corruption, of President Mugabe and his Government. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: if President Mugabe had wanted an orderly and just land reform programme at any stage in the past few years, we would have been keen to work with him. He did not. Instead he has used the land reform issue as an excuse for undermining Zimbabwean democracy; and more than this, the actions have now provoked a grave economic crisis in a country that has the potential to be rich and successful. This is a tragedy for all Zimbabwe's people. The victims of Mr. Mugabe are not primarily white; they are the ordinary black citizens fed up with years of decline and corruption.

President Mugabe's behaviour was denounced by a very large number of Commonwealth countries at Coolum. Again we should make it clear that this included outspoken and courageous condemnation by African leaders who understand very well that the damage that President Mugabe is doing harms not only Zimbabwe but Africa as a whole. Despite President Mugabe's mob propaganda, this is not an issue that divides the Commonwealth on racial lines—not one that divides Africa from the other Commonwealth members.

Although there was a strong current of criticism running at Coolum, decisions need to be unanimous at the Heads of Government meeting, and in a body representing more than 50 separate nations there was no realistic prospect of a consensus for suspending Zimbabwe from Commonwealth membership in advance of the elections this coming weekend. But we did agree a statement on Zimbabwe that expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the current election campaign, and called for free and fair elections. That statement makes provision for Zimbabwe's suspension, if the report of the Commonwealth observers currently in Zimbabwe is adverse.

If the observers' report does indeed find widespread evidence of intimidation and violence, the fudging will have to stop. The credibility of the Commonwealth itself is at stake. The procedures laid down in the Harare Commonwealth declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth action programme are clear, and action must follow, up to and including suspension. Let me add that it is a remarkable tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe that the Opposition retain even a chance of winning those elections at all. Again, let us be clear: if they do win, President Mugabe must accept the result and hand over power.

The Coolum meeting provided an opportunity for me to meet a number of African leaders to discuss the New Partnership for African Development. We need to work with Africa, through the G8 and through a wide range of international organisations, to grasp this opportunity for a new start, and new hope for Africa. On aid, trade and conflict I believe that we have a real chance for progress, with commitment and leadership on both sides. We will continue to make that a major priority of British policy.

Coolum also allowed me to meet the Heads of Government of Commonwealth Caribbean countries. We discussed ways of developing the United Kingdom's relations with them, and ways of helping them to confront the challenges that they face, particularly in countering drugs and terrorism, and in the economic and trade fields. There will be a further opportunity to develop that dialogue at the meeting of the UK/Caribbean Forum in Georgetown, Guyana, next month.

Finally, I co-hosted with John Howard the Commonwealth sports lunch, where we looked forward to the Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer and then in Melbourne in 2006.

I wish to conclude with thanks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the work that he did in preparing for the Coolum meeting, particularly in the Commonwealth ministerial action group. It was a great sadness that, for personal reasons, he was unable to attend the meeting itself, but I wish also to record my thanks to my noble Friend Baroness Amos for the valuable role that she played at Coolum.

May I join the Prime Minister at the outset in recording my pleasure at the presence of Her Majesty at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting during her jubilee year? As the Prime Minister so rightly said, the leadership and service that she has given to the Commonwealth over the last 50 years is admired and respected by very many people around the globe, and I, like him, look forward to the observance service on 11 March. I also welcome the adoption of the action plan on terrorism, and that part of the Coolum communiqué reaffirms the principles of working to reduce poverty through the Commonwealth institutions.

However, no hon. Member can be satisfied with the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting regarding Zimbabwe. What the Prime Minister said in condemning Mr. Mugabe is quite right, and I associate myself with all those statements criticising him and accusing him of all the things that he has done. This is not about black versus white in Zimbabwe, and it never has been; it is about everyone in Zimbabwe suffering under a tyrant who has thrown out the rule of law and democracy. However, the suggestion that the Commonwealth might in due course merely voice "collective disapproval" at the actions of the Zimbabwe Government is only the latest in a litany of laughable and inadequate responses that have too often let Mr. Mugabe off the hook.

Last October, the Prime Minister publicly told his party that there must be "no tolerance" of

"the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".

Those were rightly tough words, yet, sadly, the Government have in their actions too often appeared to tolerate his activities. The Abuja agreement did nothing to stop the violence and intimidation practised by Mr. Mugabe's regime, yet it was greeted by the Foreign Secretary as "a positive step forward" and, despite evidence that Mr. Mugabe was ignoring it throughout, no action was taken.

We were not alone in voicing our concerns. In September last year, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai—a very brave man—called for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth if Mugabe breached the law on land reform. The British Government never publicly set any such benchmark. In fact, it was a further three months before the Commonwealth declared that the situation in Zimbabwe was a "serious and persistent violation" of its fundamental principles.

Why did it then take the Foreign Secretary and the Government another three weeks after that long delay finally to recommend that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth? In the four months taken to get to that point, Mr. Mugabe's regime of terror continued unabated and very well reported, yet my concern was that the Government dithered: they seemed to hide behind the claim to be working within the European Union, yet Europe, too, was dragging its feet.

It was not until 28 January—only five weeks ago—that the Foreign Secretary was able to say that the EU's position on sanctions was "clear, unambiguous and unanimous". Even then, it took another three weeks and the expulsion of the head of the EU observer mission for sanctions to be imposed. People such as Mr. Mugabe clearly feed off that kind of indecisiveness. It is no wonder that—despite the Prime Minister's best efforts, which we support, in Brisbane—he could not persuade his Commonwealth colleagues to take action against Zimbabwe. As far as they were concerned, the British Government only decided to support suspension just under two months ago.

It could all have been very different. If there had been real leadership throughout, from whatever source, the Commonwealth would have sent a much stronger message, and one that we would have done well to learn.

The lesson is that we must not repeat that failure, and the Prime Minister therefore needs to answer some important, key questions about the future action that the Commonwealth may or may not take.

First, will the Prime Minister guarantee Morgan Tsvangirai the full support of the British Government—whether he wins or loses—not just now, but in the difficult months ahead? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that the transparency of Sunday's election will be judged on the criteria laid down by the Southern African Development Community in March last year? Thirdly, does he agree that, if those forces opposed to democracy continue their terrible destruction of Zimbabwe, an international coalition composed of the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth should take all necessary steps to secure a safe future for Zimbabwe?

The Commonwealth's statements on Zimbabwe and Mugabe this past weekend have been weak and ineffectual, and we must ensure that a much stronger and clearer message goes out to Zimbabwe. I served in Zimbabwe when we brought about the transition to the current Government back in 1979–80—so I need no sedentary lectures from Labour Members, who have done nothing but mouth off—and the high hopes of those days are now being destroyed. The Government's policy and those of the Commonwealth now read like a text book on how not to deal with a tyrant. The Government talk a lot about leading in Europe and leading in the Commonwealth. They have not yet done so—perhaps now is the time for them to pull this situation back before it is too late.

The right hon. Gentleman has the ability to exploit any situation to make absurd points. The idea that the problem in Zimbabwe is a result either of the Government's failure to condemn Mr. Mugabe, whom we have condemned right from the very beginning, or, even more absurdly, of the European Union, which I fear marks a return to the Conservative party's obsession with the European Union, is ridiculous. The truth is that we have made it clear throughout that we wholly condemn Mr. Mugabe. However, decisions have to be unanimous in order to get action through the Commonwealth at the Heads of Government meeting. In other words, every country has to agree. There was never a realistic prospect of getting some of them to agree to sanctions now. The Government's position, however, has been utterly clear throughout.

In respect of the three points the right hon. Gentleman demands we answer, we have already done so many, many times. Yes, of course it is the case that if the observers' report indicates that the election has been rife with violence and intimidation—as I am sure it will, given the emerging evidence—suspension should follow under the criteria agreed by the Commonwealth. There is no question in those circumstances of collective disapproval alone being satisfactory. However, that is again something that Britain alone cannot decide. With the greatest of respect, when we analyse what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do, we have already done it. The idea that, by some miraculous power, he would have managed to persuade all the Heads of the Commonwealth to go along with something heavier stretches his credibility a little beyond what it will bear.

In respect of the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raises, it is important that we ensure that firm action follows. The one part of the Commonwealth statement that I can say I am happy with is the notion that a mechanism should exist that depends not on all 50 members of the Commonwealth, but on the past, present and future Chairmen of the Commonwealth Heads of Government who will take a decision on the basis of the recommendation of the Secretary-General. That gives us a far more streamlined way in which to reach a quick decision. I very much hope that they come to the right decision. It is at least a small step forward, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge it.

In thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, hon. Members should acknowledge that it is an unusually strong statement for any Prime Minister who has returned from such an international summit meeting to make to the House of Commons, and deservedly so given the circumstances and the primary topic of international concern and discussion. In recognising that fact, I think the Prime Minister would concur that the one thing the House of Commons, as much as the Government, can do at this juncture is to speak with a united voice on Zimbabwe and the international implications. Given that the Conservative party lacks the self-confidence to believe that it could persuade a dozen and a few more members of the European Union, is it not bizarre that it should think that it could have flown to Australia to dictate the passage of actions to dozens of members of the Commonwealth?

If the bad news from Zimbabwe worsens over the next few days as we witness the conduct of the elections and their outcome, will the Prime Minister confirm that our country will take a lead on a Commonwealth basis to ensure that suspension or expulsion from the Commonwealth, which we would all have preferred to happen at this stage, proceeds as fast as is politically possible? I hope that he can reassure us on that. If the situation continues to deteriorate and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has to deal with the migration of refugees across borders into neighbouring countries, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will give its full support to whatever endeavours may have to be anticipated and dealt with, although of course we hope that they will not arise?

Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that in the court of public opinion, where Robert Mugabe is concerned, it is one thing for politicians to disagree, but when any head of state has moved to the extent that broadcasters and journalists, including those from the BBC—some of the most impartial and authoritative journalists in the world—are excluded or thrown out of a country, that in itself is an admission of guilt?

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of the most eccentric happenings at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was the sight of the Information Minister of Zimbabwe coming to Australia to talk to the BBC, which had of course been thrown out of Zimbabwe during its coverage of the election.

Of course we will do our very best to secure the right outcome in light of the Commonwealth observers' report. I should just add to what I said a moment ago that all three members of the group that will take the decision, on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, have made it clear that if the observers do detail violence and intimidation, they will take the appropriate action. Giving that assurance is different from delivering on it, but we will do our best to hold people to that position.

What the right hon. Gentleman said about refugees is true. There are already hundreds of thousands, if not more, Zimbabwean refugees flooding into neighbouring countries. One of the tragedies of what Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe is that the income of its people has literally halved in the past few years, but it is a potentially wealthy country. It could have been a leader in southern Africa, instead of which Mugabe has turned it into a country where industry feels uncomfortable, where people are in a state of oppression and where the economy is unable to function properly.

In view of what the Prime Minister is reported to have said about Iraq to the Australian media, and following his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) at Question Time, could he, at his convenience, glance at the report of this morning's Westminster Hall debate on military action against Iraq and reflect on whether he ought not to come and make a very full speech—as Prime Ministers used to do—on the Iraq situation before it is contemplated committing British troops? Is it not right that in a situation where there is, so to speak, an optional war, the House of Commons should have a formal endorsement by vote?

As I pointed out at Prime Minister's Question Time, we have not agreed any action in respect of Iraq at the moment, so it is important that before anyone takes a position condemning it or supporting it, we see what the Government propose we should do. On the point about coming to the House, most people would have to acknowledge that after 11 September, not only did I make several statements to the House, but so did other Ministers, and we have had no fewer than five different debates on the subject, so I really do not think that it can be said that we have been committing British forces without proper consultation with the House. When decisions do have to be taken on Iraq, of course we will come and consult the House properly as we should.

Will the Prime Minister take the earliest possible opportunity to impress on the Commonwealth Heads of Government that the partial attitude towards Mugabe shown by far too many of them undermines the respect and support, in this country and elsewhere, for the Commonwealth as an institution?

It is correct that I found some of the contributions at the meeting hard to understand in light of what is happening. I believe that, especially when the whole world is trying to put together a partnership for Africa based on us providing more aid, better access to our markets and help with good governance, it is all the more right and appropriate that strong and good governance in Africa is upheld.

The one qualification that I would make to that, however, is that there were reports that Africa en bloc was against strong action on Zimbabwe; that is not correct, and it is not fair to African countries. Many African leaders, including some from that region, spoke very strongly against what Mr. Mugabe is doing. There are those who feel that we should wait until the election until we make the decision to suspend. I can understand that, even though I do not agree with it. I think that it means that if the Commonwealth observers' report is adverse, there is an obligation on the Commonwealth to retain its credibility by acting against Mugabe.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us on the Labour Benches— I emphasise, the Labour Benches—who urged the strongest economic sanctions against the illegal regime in what was then Rhodesia need no lectures from anybody, certainly not Mugabe and his thugs, about racism? I speak as one who is perhaps not considered to be the biggest admirer of the EU, but is it not the case that if any EU member country had come anywhere near what Mugabe has done, that country would have been suspended very quickly? Perhaps the Commonwealth should learn from that.

I agree entirely. In those circumstances, the EU would of course suspend a country. That is why it is all the more important that we ensure that the Commonwealth, if it is to retain its credibility, acts. However, to answer those shouting out from the Opposition Benches, that has to be done at 50 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The advantage of the mechanism that we have agreed is that because three countries will take the decision, we have a better chance of getting the right result.

It is hard to disagree with a single word that the Prime Minister has said about Zimbabwe. He spoke out robustly. However, the train of events in Zimbabwe is not new: it is not a feature of the past few months, but has been going on for two years, since Mugabe lost his referendum in February 2000. Yes, it has become worse over that time, but there has been a consistent pattern of intimidation, brutality and subversion of the rule of law. In that time, some of us have called for targeted action against individuals—members of the gang of hoodlums who support Mugabe in office and in power and Mugabe himself—and for targeted sanctions, but we have been pushed away by the Government, the current Foreign Secretary and his predecessor. The only Minister who consistently spoke up robustly along those lines is the current Minister for Europe, who, as soon he did so, was slapped down and moved out of his job. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of all that is that when a dictator starts to behave in a tyrannical manner, robust action taken early on makes the difference? We should by now have learned that appeasing tyrants does not work.

I simply disagree totally. The Government made their position on Mugabe plain right from the outset. Whether we act in the EU or in the Commonwealth, we have to get other countries to join us. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the issue was first raised a couple of years ago, close consultations took place with the opposition movement in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change, about the right response. The idea that we have not sought firm action against Mugabe is absurd, but we have to get that action agreed at European level and at Commonwealth level, and that is best done by working with other countries.

You dithered!

In response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, may I say that the notion that the Conservative party, with its attitude towards Europe and the Commonwealth, could have got further is more than a little absurd?

I welcome my right hon. Friend's report that there was a discussion about Angola. Given the recent events affecting UNITA, can he assure us that that discussion was positive and that Angola's prospects are better than they have been in recent years?

I think that that is true—there is a greater prospect of stability in Angola. That emphasises, as my right hon. Friend correctly identifies, the importance of ensuring that we establish proper systems of conflict resolution in Africa. The single biggest problem for countries in many parts of Africa is conflicts lasting for years that have made it absolutely impossible for those countries to develop properly. That is what we want to achieve as part of the deal for Africa at the G8 summit. Whether in Congo, Angola, Sudan or Somalia, there is a real prospect of getting the right conflict resolution systems in place so that stability can be restored. I believe that the situation in Angola today is more hopeful than it has been for some time.

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, particularly the large section of it that referred to Zimbabwe. Does he agree that poverty in many central African countries is exacerbated by the chaos in Zimbabwe? Unfortunately, the Commonwealth monitors are not generating confidence among the opponents of Mr. Mugabe, particularly the Movement for Democratic Change. I receive e-mails by the day from Zimbabwe highlighting the monitors' inadequacy.

I know that the Prime Minister must be careful in saying so, but does he agree that the Commonwealth has not enhanced its credibility by not taking a decision at least to suspend Zimbabwe? Is he not worried that after the election on Sunday, the votes will be counted by those who are in hock to Mr. Mugabe?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns about the way in which the poll will be conducted. I should have preferred the Commonwealth to go further. The real test of its credibility will come after the weekend's election. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that as a result of the instability in Zimbabwe, problems are being exported to other African countries in the region. That is, in my view, why it is all the more important that they speak out and speak up.

I fully endorse everything that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon with regard to Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. Did the Commonwealth Heads of Government look at the situation in Pakistan, whose membership of the Commonwealth is suspended, giving due regard to what President Musharraf has boldly and courageously done about terrorism over the past few months and recognising that he is working towards achieving democracy later this year? Should not the Commonwealth be addressing what it can do to help Pakistan return to democracy and return to the Commonwealth, I hope later this year?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope very much that Pakistan keeps to the road map to democracy that was set out by President Musharraf last year. That is important, and I pay tribute to his leadership of his country over the past few months; the strong position that he has taken in respect of international terrorism; and his recent speech that takes on the extremists who would abuse the religion of Islam for the purposes of political extremism. I know that the Commonwealth will want to work with Pakistan to make sure that that road map to democracy is fulfilled and that Pakistan can come back as a full member of the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister's persuasive powers have obviously not been enjoying success with the Commonwealth or, for that matter, with President Bush on steel. If President Mugabe rigs the elections or refuses to accept the result and executive action follows, as the Prime Minister indicates, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that action will be sustained by a consensus of Commonwealth heads of state?

European Union sanctions have attempted to target leading figures in ZANU-PF so that they do not impact on ordinary people in Zimbabwe. Does the Prime Minister envisage any way of toughening up European Union action that will not impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, whose conditions are fairly desperate already?

We will certainly look at what further European action can follow, although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important that that does not impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. However, the benefit of the mechanism that we have outlined is that it restricts the decision making to the three countries, not the 50. If they make that recommendation, we will be able to sustain it. As I said earlier, that is the one point of hope to come out the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe, the Government have responded largely along lines approved of by the Movement for Democratic Change? If the worst comes to the worst after this weekend, what, besides any action taken by the Commonwealth, may be done at a United Nations level to ensure that there is true democracy in Zimbabwe and that we set in train efforts to restore prosperity there?

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. He is right. We have tried to maintain close contact with the Movement for Democratic Change in terms of what it is sensible for Britain to pursue. There are points in time—this is why I think that some of the remarks made by the Opposition are silly—at which Britain's role in Zimbabwe, if it is not handled with care, can help Mugabe rather than hinder him. We have been sensitive to that throughout. In respect of my hon. Friend's point about the United Nations, we would pursue that at every level and in every forum, but we will have to wait to determine the precise nature of that.

I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the Opposition's view about Zimbabwe. His memory is not entirely accurate. Morgan Tsvangirai was calling for targeted sanctions long before a response came from the Government. Like the rest of us, the Prime Minister knows that it is not just Zimbabwe that is suffering from what is going on in that country; the surrounding countries are suffering too. If some miracle happens and Mugabe loses the election—as we all know he should if the election were free and fair—will the Prime Minister undertake to talk to all his colleagues in the Commonwealth and in the EU and put together a rapid package of aid so that we can get Zimbabwe back on its feet very quickly?

Of course we will look at what we can do to assist Zimbabwe, at European level and in respect of the Heads of Government as well. With regard to the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, it is a feature of Opposition parties destined to remain Opposition parties for a long time that they seek to make political capital out of anything.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to take action where we can against those friends of Mr. Mugabe who make violence and repression possible, not least arms dealers based here in the UK? Those include Mr. Mugabe's main supplier, Mr. John Bredenkamp, whose name I have brought to the attention of the House several times. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been pursuing investigations into that individual. Over several months, I am sorry to say, my questions to the Foreign Office in that respect have simply hit a brick wall. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry work closely with the Department for International Development to do their utmost to close down the activities of those UK-based arms dealers?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will be in touch with him about that. My understanding is that the European Union has made it clear that the export of arms to Zimbabwe is unacceptable.

Would not our country have more credibility countering the propaganda of the Zimbabwe Government Information Minister, Mr. Jonathan Moyo, if our Government Information and Communications Service and its officers and £150 million budget did not answer to the Prime Minister's political appointee, Mr. Alastair Campbell?

It is extraordinary that on a serious subject for millions of people in Zimbabwe, and when it is obvious, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said a moment or two ago, that the best message to send out from the House is a united one, some parts of the Conservative party have done nothing today but try to make political capital out of the situation in Zimbabwe and suggest that there is some magic resolution of it that the Government could have secured. That is nonsense. What is happening in Zimbabwe is a disgrace. The whole House should be united in condemning it, and points such as those made by the hon. Gentleman only give succour to those who support the Mugabe regime

Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us strongly support his comment in his statement that the fudging must stop? The indecision of the Commonwealth conference has left a dreadful stain on the Commonwealth which will last for a long time to come. On the assumption that the election on Sunday will almost certainly be violently rigged by Mugabe, will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to ensure that smart sanctions are introduced as quickly as possible by as many countries that are our allies as possible?

We will, of course, do everything we possibly can. On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the test for the Commonwealth will come once the election takes place. I should have preferred action to be taken before then, but that is the chance for the Commonwealth to show that the principles that it agreed—ironically, in Zimbabwe, at Harare—10 or so years ago will be maintained in this situation. The United States has already indicated the action that it will take, as has the European Union. We will fight for action at every international level.

The Prime Minister knows better than any of us how important international unity has been following the national unity in this House in the international fight against terrorism, whether through the UN, the Commonwealth or the EU. As the Prime Minister has recognised through his international travel that terrorism is terrorism wherever it comes from and wherever it takes place, whether the Twin Towers, Canary Wharf, the Baltic Exchange or Enniskillen, could he foresee a time when Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive and not convicted, would receive a national and international amnesty similar to the amnesty that he and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are about to announce in Northern Ireland?

No, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, but the situation in Northern Ireland is different because a peace process is under way there. Whatever the difficulties, the hon. Gentleman would have to accept that the Belfast agreement has considerably improved the situation in Northern Ireland, whether with regard to jobs, investment or security, and it is important that we sustain that agreement. However, as I say. I understand why the hon. Gentleman expresses the view s that he does.

If, as is widely expected, the outcome of this week's election in Zimbabwe is to unleash yet further violence against Mr. Mugabe's enemies, can the Prime Minister assure the House that every possible contingency plan has been taken to protect the lives of the 25,000 UK passport holders who at present reside there?

We shall obviously do everything that we possibly can. Of course, we have given considerable thought to what we could do to protect the people there, but I very much hope that it will not come to that.

The Prime Minister was right to point out in his statement that, remarkably, it is still just possible that Mugabe could be toppled from power this weekend, such is the scale of his unpopularity there, as shown by what polling evidence there is. If that happens, unlikely as it may be, can the Prime Minister confirm that plans are in place to provide immediate assistance next week to help to stabilise the new President and the country and to help the reconstruction process get under way?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the Opposition were to win and the democratic will of the people were to prevail, we would do everything that we could to ensure that Zimbabwe was given the fresh start that it needs.

The Prime Minister has said that his preference would be for action before the election on Sunday, not after. There is one thing that he could do that would send a clear signal now. Will he make it clear today that if Mugabe remains in office after Sunday, Zimbabwe will not be welcome at the Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer?

I shall certainly consult on that in the light of what happens at the weekend.

The next business was to be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the statement reached the Opposition only 10 minutes ago, so in order to allow the Opposition time to study the statement I shall take the ten-minute Bill first.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered during criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings.

In 1994, a series of murders committed over a number of years came to light in my constituency of Gloucester. During that time, the city became the focus for the country's, and indeed the world's, media. It soon became apparent that 25 Cromwell street had been the venue for some of the most appalling acts of sexual abuse, torture and mass murder that Britain has ever seen. During a number of agonising weeks, many people discovered the fate of their missing loved ones. It was an extremely painful time for many people, and how victims' relatives and the surviving victims can even begin to rebuild their lives is almost beyond my comprehension. I know that many have done so, however, as many of them reside in my constituency. I am introducing this Bill because their healing process was to be rudely interrupted.

In 1996, Fred West committed suicide in jail while still awaiting trial. He died intestate and the Official Solicitor made a deal with a television company for the documentary television and video rights to the archive material from his estate. That evidence included recorded interviews that the police had conducted with West, West's personal photographs, home video footage and witness testimonies—evidence that would have been covered by Crown copyright had West not committed suicide pre-trial. Essentially, all the evidence that the police had gathered during their investigations was being sold on by the Official Solicitor to a television company. That television company was the creative consortium working with Channel 5.

When the police interview a suspect such as Fred West, they give the defence counsel copies of their evidence under the disclosure rule. They do not expect evidence for a court case then to be sold on to the media to produce a salacious television documentary. Channel 5 commissioned a programme on Fred West and broadcast not just transcripts of his confessions but his voice—he described his crimes in great detail. Unsurprisingly, the Gloucestershire constabulary was aghast. The victims, many of whom live in my constituency, turned to me because they could not believe that trial evidence could be traded in such a way.

Prior to the broadcast, I wrote to or had meetings with representatives of the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Attorney-General to convey the concerns of the police and those of the victims and their families. The Attorney-General told me that an application for an injunction would not be successful, and that a court could not be expected to prevent a broadcast as it would contravene article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The police argued that taped interviews and other material were covered by Crown copyright and asked the Attorney-General to block that material being broadcast on the basis that not to do so would be a contempt of court. That request was turned down. The BSC and the ITC then told me that they could only act retrospectively—after the programme had been shown. Indeed, the Broadcasting Act 1990 explicitly excludes the possibility of the ITC being able to preview such a programme.

By maximising the estate of Fred West in such a way, the Official Solicitor had made it impossible for the Government or the regulators—the ITC and the BSC—to prevent footage of a mass murderer talking about his crimes in his own voice from appearing on our screens.

Channel 5 showed its documentary. Throughout the campaign to block the broadcast, Channel 5 consistently gave reassurances that the programme would be tasteful and predominantly investigative. Indeed, shortly before the broadcast, Channel 5's chief executive stated:

"This documentary is of the highest possible calibre. It is not in any way salacious."

None the less, the programme showed Fred West describing his crimes in great detail. It showed pictures of victims faded in and out against pictures of their skeletal remains, and it showed Rose West undressing in front of the camera and in bed with her clients

Some may argue that censorship is an issue in this matter, and a reason to object to the Bill. However, it has never been my intention to prevent the making of a programme about Fred West. I do not have a problem with crime documentaries. Two other documentaries about Fred West are in the public domain at present. They were made with the co-operation of surviving victims, the police and people in the legal profession. My Bill would not prevent the media from covering or documenting such cases, but the sale of evidence and the screening of the film have significant implications for future police investigations.

The police officer who led the investigation, former Detective Superintendent John Bennett, said on the eve of the Channel 5 broadcast:

"Police promises of confidentiality are rendered useless if every tape and every piece of evidence can be turned over to TV companies on the whim of some legal bureaucrat."

If this programme has set a precedent and more programmes of this nature are made, how long will it be before detained prisoners, aware that their confessions could soon be in every living room in the country, simply refuse to talk to the police? How long will it be before witnesses, who already face enormous difficulties in even talking about their experiences, are simply unable to open up to the police?

Furthermore, once evidence is in the public domain, there is also the danger that convicted criminals will have easy access to witnesses' testimonies once they have served their sentences. How long will it be before a convicted criminal is able to access everything that a prosecution witness has said?

This Bill does not introduce censorship. It does not undermine the media. However, it will ensure that, if surviving victims of crime or the families of murder victims object to the sale to the media of evidence that was meant for a trial, the Official Solicitor will have to seek permission from the Attorney-General.

Fred West is dead. Through the sale of evidence from his trial by the Official Solicitor to the media, his surviving victims, many of whom are my constituents, have been tormented by him again. The police and the justice system have felt undermined. In similar cases up and down the land, that could happen again. This Bill can change that. It may be too late for some, but it is not too late for others

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Tom Watson, Ms Candy Atherton, John Mann, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. George Osborne, Patrick Mercer, Jim Knight, John Robertson and Valerie Davey.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the announcement made last night by President Bush on his decision to impose a range of tariff measures that would severely restrict United States imports of steel products from the rest of the world. These measures will impose additional tariffs of between 8 and 30 per cent. on products that account for some three quarters of US steel imports. They will effectively close the American market to many products.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are extremely disappointed that President Bush has taken this action in the face of united international opinion. It is wholly unjustified at a time of falling American imports and rising prices. In our view and that of the European Commission, it is a clear breach of the United States WTO obligations. As well as having an international effect, steel import restrictions will raise costs for American industry to the detriment of consumers and the American manufacturing sector overall. Import restrictions will also only delay much-needed steel restructuring and hurt the American manufacturing sector just at a time when it appears to be rallying from the economic downturn.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and a number of other Ministers have been in frequent touch with the highest levels of the American Administration since last July, when the investigation by the US International Trade Commission was announced. That has continued throughout this week, when I have twice spoken with the American Commerce Secretary, Donald Evans. We have all made it very clear that measures restricting imports would he quite the wrong response to problems that are faced by parts of the American steel industry. We have also stressed to the American Administration that this is more than an issue between the European Union and the United States. The American action, in clear disregard of international opinion, risks undermining the good work that was done a few months ago to achieve the Doha launch of a new round of trade liberalisation. Why should developing countries commit to free and open markets when the United States closes its domestic market to address a problem that many see as largely of the American industry's own making?

Of course, there are also real issues in the global steel trade market, including excess capacity and market-distorting subsidies, but they are best addressed multilaterally through the discussions that have been convened by the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development with our full support. Until now, those discussions have been making good progress, but although we hope that that effort can continue, the American action risks jeopardising that progress.

Most of all, however, I am concerned—as every Member of this House will be—about the impact that these American measures will have on the British steel industry and steelworkers. We have one of the most efficient and productive steel-making industries and work forces in the world. That achievement has been a very painful process. Some 86,000 steel jobs have been lost in Britain since 1980 and some 10,000 have been lost in the past 18 months. All of us in this House know how tough that has been for workers who have lost their jobs and for their families and communities. We also know what the Government have done to see them through those difficult times. But the outcome is an efficient and productive industry that is able to compete effectively in world markets. We are not prepared to allow the United States to try to dump its problems on the rest of the world instead of facing up to the challenge of modernising and restructuring its industry.

The steel curtain that the American Administration have brought down threatens our industry in two ways. First, it will directly affect some of our exports. Three quarters of all UK steel production is sold in the European Union, including the UK. About 9 per cent. of our total production is exported to the United States, and about 4 per cent. will be affected by the American tariffs. One especially significant UK export product—hot-rolled bar and cold-finished bar—will be subject to a prohibitive 30 per cent. tariff. Given the current state of our steel industry, that will have a devastating effect on many of our companies and their workers. Secondly—this is potentially even more damaging to UK and other European industry—there is the proposed 30 per cent. tariff on flat steel products. There is a serious risk that when the tariffs take effect on 20 March, the British and European markets will be flooded by exports of these products from third countries, mainly in the far east, that would otherwise have sold to the United States.

We will stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustifiable and deeply regrettable action. I therefore fully support today's announcement by EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy that he will request immediate WTO dispute settlement action. Indeed, he has already done so. The first step in this is a 60-day consultation period with the United States, but, unless the American Administration are prepared to rethink their action, a WTO disputes panel will follow. Realistically, this case—which I am confident the European Union will win—will take some considerable time, perhaps up to two years. We are not prepared to stand by while British industry and jobs are put at risk for that length of time.

I can confirm that Commissioner Lamy, to whom I have just spoken, is already considering appropriate and urgent action to be taken to safeguard British and European steel producers and workers against a flood of steel imports. Indeed, we were already pressing the Commission last week to be prepared to take such action in the event that the Americans took protectionist measures of this magnitude.

Let me stress that safeguard action is allowable under WTO rules, where it is intended to protect countries from surges in imports that cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury. That does not mean that we are simply copying the American actions of which we are so rightly critical. We would much prefer not to have to take any action. Our trade policy is to promote open and fair global markets, but, in circumstances in which the British and European marketplace could be flooded by steel imports as a result of American action, we are forced to consider appropriate and proportionate action to protect our own industry and its work force.

I very much regret being forced into safeguard action. This would be the first time that any safeguard action had been taken by the European Union since the present regulations came into effect eight years ago. I particularly regret that it is the United States that will have prompted this action. Only four months ago, we were working closely with America, and with developing countries, to launch a new round of world trade negotiations. We will continue to work for free and fair trade around the world, because it is in all our interests—those of the developed countries and the developing countries alike—to achieve that. We will also continue to stand up for the interests of the British economy and British workers at home and abroad.

Although I extend the usual thanks to the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of her statement in advance, may I express regret that she did not see fit to apologise for the fact that it did not arrive until 10 minutes before the Prime Minister sat down? May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to convey my thanks to Mr. Speaker for making it clear, by bringing forward the ten-minute Bill, that that kind of discourtesy is unacceptable to the House?

Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House to make this statement, in contrast to her failure even to attend the debate that took place here on this issue last night. First, I would like to make it clear that the Conservatives join the Government in condemning the action taken by the United States Administration. The import tariffs that have been announced will do nothing to help the steel companies in the United States that are suffering from competition from more efficient producers at home, and they will also push up raw material costs for many more American companies that use steel. However, although this action may prove damaging to the American economy, there is no doubt that the effect on the steel industry in this country will be devastating, putting at risk yet more jobs, on top of the thousands of redundancies that have occurred in the last two years.

We therefore support the action taken by the European Union to lodge an immediate complaint with the World Trade Organisation, which must be the right place to resolve disputes of this kind. Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is right to take action to protect the steel industry from a further flood of cheap imports that have been displaced from American markets, it would be entirely wrong for us now to impose retaliatory measures that could lead to an escalating trade war? Will she remind President Bush of the commitments that he has made in the past to the cause of free trade?

I join the right hon. Lady in expressing great concern that this latest action might put in jeopardy the achievement of a new world trade agreement, after the encouraging start that was made at Doha. However, although she is right to say that this matter will be dealt with by the WTO, she is also correct to say that we simply cannot afford to wait the two years that it usually takes for that organisation to reach a judgment. Will she therefore make every effort to ensure that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible, and, even at this eleventh hour, press the United States Government to hold back from implementation of the tariffs? If that cannot be achieved, we will reluctantly support the taking of safeguard action, but will she confirm that that action will be measured and permissible under WTO rules?

Will the Secretary of State explain why, during the many conversations that have taken place between the Prime Minister and President Bush in the past six months, the Prime Minister did not raise this matter with the President until last week? It has been clear since July, as she said, that the American Government intended to take this action, yet it was seven months before the Prime Minister wrote to President Bush to press him to reconsider.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the glaring contrast between the lack of urgency shown by the Prime Minister in defending the steel industry in this country, and the alacrity with which he was willing to write to the Romanian Prime Minister to promote the interests of an overseas company which happens to be owned by a major donor to the Labour party? Is she aware of the anger felt today by steelworkers in Britain about the fact that the Government have been helping Mr. Mittal, a foreign-based competitor who has been actively campaigning against British interests by giving $600,000 to the campaign that is lobbying for tariffs in the United States?

On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State tried to claim that the American subsidiary of Corns had also supported that campaign. Does she now accept that that is completely untrue? Does she accept that the president of Corns Tuscaloosa wrote to the American Iron and Steel Institute making it clear that the firm was totally opposed to the introduction of tariffs, and would not support the AISI in the matter?

Is this not another instance in which the Government's attempt to justify their actions has been shown to be wholly incredible and based on a complete distortion of the facts? Will the Secretary of State therefore apologise to Corns, and to all who work in the steel industry in this country, for the support that her Government have given to a company whose actions may directly contribute to the loss of their own jobs?

Of course I regret the fact that my office was unable to give the hon. Gentleman a copy of my statement any earlier this afternoon, but I know he will understand that my first priority was to ensure that we understood precisely the details of what the American Administration are proposing, how that would affect our industry and how we could best deal with the situation. As for yesterday's debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy was present throughout.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the action that we and the European Union are already taking in response to the American action. There will be no tit-for-tat retaliation. We will not respond to the American Administration's flouting of the WTO rules by flouting them ourselves. We will of course continue to press the American Administration, even now, to back off from the actions that they have announced, just as we will continue to press for exemptions of products that are of particular significance to the British steel industry. We will, however, also start urgent discussions with the European Commission and our European colleagues to ensure that we do, if necessary, take the appropriate safeguard action—as permitted by the WTO rules—to protect our industry and our workers from a flood of imports.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the issue was pressed with the American Administration. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear this afternoon, I first raised it at senior Administration levels last July. It was not at all obvious at that point that the Administration would pursue this course, and for many months—through me, through other Ministers and through the embassy—we continued to try to persuade the Administration that they should not risk the consequences of this retreat into protectionism. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed this afternoon, when it became more likely that the Administration would take this action, he raised the matter directly with the President.

On the enormous pressure that trade unions and trade associations in the United States have put on the American Government, all companies operating in the American steel sector are in fact members of the trade associations that lobbied for those tariffs. Indeed, I made precisely that point this morning. Corus and Corus UK in particular have made it very clear that they are against that action.

We hear synthetic anger from the Opposition about donations and job losses in the steel industry, but they did not care about such losses when they were in government and devastating the British steel industry. Let me make the matter clear once again: donations to political parties have nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. At any rate, they have nothing whatsoever to do with our Government's policy. We have no idea what influence political donations had on the policy of the previous Conservative Government, for the simple reason that they and the Conservative party flatly refused to publish any information on donations, whether British or foreign. We will therefore take no lessons from Conservatives on party political funding. It is this Government who have made party political donations transparent.

We will continue to support the Romanian Government's efforts to open up their economy and modernise their industry because it is in Britain's interest for Romania and other candidate countries to join the European Union and become more prosperous themselves. I suspect, however, that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is unaware that America has exempted Romania and the other candidate countries from those tariffs precisely because their exports to the United States—like those to the European Union—are too small to be of any significance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no winners in a trade war involving the imposition of tariffs, and that we must try as quickly as possible to stop it? Let us not forget that there are 30 days in which a great deal of work can be done. I urge her to ensure that the European Union carries a big stick, and wields it if necessary. In circumstances such as this, the Americans must be made to understand that we are not a soft touch, and that the WTO will come down on them like a ton of bricks. It will not be the workers of Ohio or West Virginia who will benefit from such action.

I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. Of course, neither the United Kingdom nor the European Union will be a soft touch on this matter. We have supported the strengthening of the WTO, and we believe in a proper framework of rules for free and fair trade, and in the use of WTO procedures when concerns exist about imports. We completely reject the actions of the American Administration in flouting WTO rules. They have put at risk a new round of trade liberalisation, which, if successful, could benefit the entire global economy. We will stand up vigorously for the interests of our workers and companies.

I echo the comments of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the American action. It was indeed reckless and stupid in economic terms, and it threatens to contaminate the international trade negotiating process. The Americans are sending the message, "Don't do as we do, do as we say." That combination of hypocrisy and bullying will do much damage to international trade.

However, I want to part company with the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman on the issue of retaliation, and in that regard I totally endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill).

If the 30-day period expires without any sign of reasonableness from the American Administration, is the Secretary of State aware that under the article 19 action, which the Americans have taken—so-called selective safeguard action—it would be entirely legitimate for countries damaged by that process to take retaliatory action? She has seen the impact of smart sanctions from the US in the form of the so-called carousel that they operated in the banana dispute, so I wonder why she and the EU are not preparing a list of comparable sanctions to take against specific American targets, if they do not back down in this dispute.

I also part company with the Secretary of State and with the Conservative spokesman—

The Opposition.

Yes, I part company from both of them on the issue of safeguard action. Will she accept on reflection that that is potentially a dangerous and counterproductive approach? Introducing safeguard action against all steel coming into the EU would do nothing to hurt the US, and would penalise steel-using industries in Britain, which would create unemployment because they are more labour intensive than the steel industry. It would be a reflex action that would be economically damaging.

The Secretary of State said a few moments ago that the Americans had exempted east European products from their action. Would that exemption also apply to the EU safeguard action, because the east European countries are directly in the line of fire? The Secretary of State may recall that the Sidex plant is underwritten by a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development loan, on the basis that eastern European producers will continue to have access to the European market. Can she confirm that she has checked out that point?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the stance that we have taken, but I confirm again that, unlike the American Administration, we will act in conformity with the WTO rules. The hon. Gentleman may recall that at the time that the American Administration were engaged in carousel retaliation we strongly expressed the view that that retaliatory action was contrary to the WTO rules. We will act within those rules, which explicitly allow countries to take action to protect their markets against an unforeseen and sudden surge in imports. It is ironic, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that President Bush has relied on the same clause in an attempt to justify his action, when of course steel imports into the US fell by 21 per cent. last year and are considerably lower than they were even four years ago.

We will of course look in detail at the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about the precise nature of the safeguard action that we will be forced to take if the Americans decide to persist in this action. At this stage, before we have had detailed discussions with the European Commission and other European member states, it is too early to say exactly what form that safeguard action will take.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the nature of the anger from the Conservatives, real and genuine anger will be felt in steel-making communities in Britain at the American action? Is not it insufficient to express regret at the American action, which is intolerable in the circumstances? Is not it dishonest of the American leadership to call for more open markets and more free trade while, at the same time, cynically resorting to classical protectionism of its industries, and not for the first time in recent years? Should not we therefore use every weapon at our disposal under the WTO rules to protect European and other continental markets that will be affected by that disgraceful action, and at the same time, search quickly for actions that we can legitimately direct against the US, while talks with them continue? I hope that my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that that is exactly what British workers and their families will expect us to do.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the enormous anger that is felt today in the steel communities throughout our country. Their anger is justified; they are right to be angry about the action that the American Administration will take.

It is a tragedy that the American Administration, who played such a crucial role in securing the launch of the Doha development round and a new round of world trade negotiations, and signed up to negotiations that are designed to slash tariffs and import quotas around the world, have resorted to naked protectionism with no justification or legal basis.

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's points about the need for action that is directed against America. I stress again that we shall consider what action to take, but will act within World Trade Organisation rules. That is in the interests of our country, of free and fair world trade and of the developing as well as the developed world.

Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to speak gently but firmly to President Bush, and to tell him that many friends and admirers of America, who strongly supported the way in which the Government stood by our ally in recent months, will perceive the cynical and appalling action that we are discussing in the context of British-American relations? They will not regard that action as proper treatment of America's foremost ally, with which it always claims a special relationship.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will doubtless express his disappointment and views on the action directly to President Bush. However, it is important to understand that there is no connection between the action on steel and the global coalition against terrorism. We stand with the Americans and many other countries around the world in the global coalition against terrorism because that is the right thing to do and it is in our interests to do so. In the same way, we will stand with our steelworkers and steel producers against the American Administration, who have taken such completely unjustified action, because the Americans are wrong about that matter.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Americans will take a blind bit of notice of what she does?

They should.

Of course they should. I believe that my right hon. Friend is wrong and that the Americans will not take any notice unless we link the global connections with what has happened to the steel industry. Should not we tell the Americans that we are not with them in their proposals on, for example, Iraq?

Although I understand the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings on the matter, he is wrong to try to link the deeply unfortunate action on the steel industry with other foreign policy matters, which the Government should and will judge on their merit.

May I tell the right hon. Lady that the anger on our Benches today, yesterday and the day before is anything but synthetic? Will she confirm a couple of small points? First, when did the Prime Minister become involved? There is an impression that that happened last Thursday—a bit late in the day. Secondly, when will she meet Pascal Lamy to discuss the way forward? Will she keep the House updated every week or 10 days about what is happening? The UK steel industry is going down the tubes.

Of course I shall continue to keep hon. Members informed about the action that we are taking. I spoke to Commissioner Lamy a few minutes before making the statement to the House this afternoon. There will be meetings and further telephone calls between officials and Ministers in the next few days and weeks as we decide on the appropriate and lawful action to take. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue to support the interests of British steelworkers.

I thank the Secretary of State for her unequivocal and clear statement of support for the steel industry in the United Kingdom. Steelworkers in my constituency appreciate the Government's work on the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the safeguards that she has described will be introduced immediately? That will reassure steelworkers and their communities throughout the United Kingdom and the new all-party group on steel.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I very much appreciate the work of the new all-party parliamentary group on steel, with which I will continue to work closely.

As it is now clear from the letter published by the American chairman of Corus that the Secretary of State misled the British public on the "Today" programme this morning and has slurred Corns, will she now apologise? On three occasions, she has failed to answer a simple question, which is this; when did the Prime Minister first get involved in making representations to the American Administration and the President on this unfortunate matter?

The statements that I made on the "Today" programme this morning and in other interviews during the day were, like the statement I made this afternoon, all factually accurate. I briefed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the situation in July last year. He has remained closely involved and recently raised the issue personally with President Bush.

In the north Lincolnshire area that I represent alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Cleethorpzes (Shona McIsaac), we have seen tremendous changes in the steel industry. Back in 1979, there were more than 22,000 people on the works; there are now fewer than 4,000. Those steelworkers have taken those changes on the chin every time because they have been told that they would secure a long-term future for UK steel. This ludicrous decision from the American Government once again puts their jobs in jeopardy. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at a UK, EU and worldwide level she will do everything she can to get assistance for the industry and, moreover, that she will base all her decisions on the simple criterion of protecting British steelworkers' jobs?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and of course I can give him that assurance.

I very much hope that the Secretary of State does not feel that our anger at the loss of British steel-making jobs would be, to use her word, "synthetic". Is it her intention to approach the European Commission with a view to exempting from the safeguard procedure the steel industry of Romania?

I have already told the House that steel exports from the candidate countries have been exempted by the American Administration from their proposed tariffs. The reason for that is simple; it is because the exports from all those candidate countries are so small, whether those are exports to America or to the EU. The threat of diversion of imports, which is what we are concerned about, arises in the case of countries to whom the Americans are applying the tariffs, not the countries to whom they are not applying the tariffs. It will be in that context that we will consider the appropriate and lawful action that we will take through safeguard measures to protect our own steel industry and workers.

Will my right hon. Friend reject at very short order the proposal from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, which is that she should, in effect, write off the UK steel industry? Is she aware that the determination that she has expressed on behalf of the Government and the EU to act urgently to challenge the legitimacy of American actions in the WTO and to prevent dumping in Europe of steel displaced from the market to the USA will be very much welcomed in steel-making communities in south-east Wales, where it is understood—in a way that the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru seem entirely unable to grasp—that the policy of the Government to assist Romania to prepare its steel industry to operate within the rules of the EU so far from being detrimental to the interests of the British steel industry, will be beneficial to it, in that it will bring to an end subsidies and unfair trading practices in that quarter?

I entirely agree. My right hon. Friend is standing up for the interests of the steelworkers whom he represents. We will of course do all we can and will work extremely closely with our European allies to ensure that we protect as far as possible his constituents and other steelworkers around the country against an utterly unjustified and unlawful action.

It might surprise the right hon. Lady and the House to hear me say that the steel industry is hugely important to Ryedale. Some of our major employers and manufacturers are among the biggest customers for steel made in the United Kingdom. In particular, Ward Building Components, which is part of the Kingspan group, is important given its purchase of steel manufactured in Wales. The Portakabin and Portastore factories on the outskirts of York also purchase huge amounts of steel. Those companies need a consistent supply of high-quality steel at competitive prices.

The market has already been destabilised over the past two or three years, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) said. I foresee the situation becoming worse. We risk the loss of jobs both in steel manufacture and in firms that use steel as a major component of their manufacturing processes. The Secretary of State said that she will consider safeguard action that may cause serious injury. In doing so, will she keep in mind the serious injury that may be caused to companies that rely on the supply of steel?

Safeguard action under the WTO rules is designed to deal with a flood of imports that would cause serious injury. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern, however, about the impact on our manufacturing industry of destabilisation in the steel market. Our steel industry includes some of the most productive steel companies in the world and companies at the leading edge of creating high value-added and innovative steel products of enormous importance to manufacturing industry.

The irony of what the Americans have done is that, by effectively banning from their market the high value-added products in which Britain and other European countries excel, they will damage their own steel industry, the restructuring of which will be delayed, and parts of their manufacturing industry, including the aerospace industry. I hope, even at this late hour, that the serious implications for the American manufacturing sector might persuade the American Administration to moderate the stance that they took last night.

Will my right hon. Friend tell President Bush that his draconian measure is a foolish and stupid idea that should be buried immediately? There is a great deal of anger in the House and in our constituencies. I represent a steel constituency that has lost several thousand jobs in the past year. I associate myself strongly with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that our people seek strong action and want their jobs to be defended. Now that Turkey and South Korea may dump their steel over-capacity not on America but on this country, what action will my right hon. Friend take?

My hon. Friend is a staunch defender of his constituents who work in the steel industry. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the threat to their jobs posed by the diversion of imports from countries such as Turkey and Korea, which will be directly affected by the tariffs that the American Administration propose to impose. That is precisely why, with Commissioner Lamy and colleagues in our fellow European member states, we seek to take safeguard action to protect my hon. Friend's constituents and other steelworkers against a flood of imports from countries locked out of the American market.

Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly when she and the Prime Minister first became aware that Mr. Mittal was funding the protectionist lobby to the tune of $600,000? In light of the success of that lobby, will she and her colleagues take the only honourable course of action available to them and return the £125,000 that they took from Mr. Mittal?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me to do anything at all to help steelworkers in this country. That is a mark of the nature of his interest in the subject. It is a trivial question and it insults the steelworkers about whom I am concerned.

Has my right hon. Friend been able to make an assessment of the effect of the outrageous 30 per cent. tariff that will be placed on exports of some products, many of which are manufactured in south Yorkshire, and of the likely effect on manufacturers in the US who currently rely on those products, which come from our area?

We are in the process of making precisely that assessment, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that, given the number of different companies involved at this end, the number of different purchasers involved in the manufacturing sector in the United States, and the number of different products involved—we and others have been seeking exemption for over 1,000 products during these discussions—it is not possible to arrive at an instant assessment.

As I said in my statement, some 4 per cent. of total British steel output will be affected by these tariffs if they go ahead on the basis of last night's statement, but obviously that will affect some companies, which specialise in those products, much more than it will others. We are looking to do that assessment very quickly. We are of course already working with the steel producers, the steel trade association and the steel trade union, to ensure that we have an accurate assessment of the damage that could be done not only to our producers, but to American manufacturing industry. On that basis, we will decide on the appropriate safeguard action that should be taken.

After the end of the American love affair—after Kyoto, the Enron debacle and now this—I am not sure that we should be so surprised that this has happened. However, given the global economy, global systems and global communications, is 60 days now an appropriate time scale in which to consult the WTO? Might we work in future to make the consultation period much shorter than 60 days? Would it be possible to invite Pascal Lamy and the president of the WTO to this place before the recess—not to the Chamber because we cannot, but to the House of Commons—so that we may express our concerns forcefully to those two people?

Of course I will look at that possibility, but let me assure my hon. Friend that, having just spoken to Commissioner Lamy, I am in no doubt—and I hope that hon. Members will be in no doubt—about the anger that is felt by him and the Government about the American action and this defiance of World Trade Organisation rules. On my hon. Friend's other point, we will continue to try to strengthen the World Trade Organisation as an institution and to ensure that it has effective dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used by member states who have a complaint rather more speedily than they can at the moment.

I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation trade union. On that point, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consult fully and keep informed the leaders of all those who represent and work in the British steel industry? May I ask her to reject out of hand those calls for action that will be tantamount to a transatlantic trade war, which is certainly not in the interests of the British steel industry, or of the British economy and British jobs? Finally, while I appreciate that it is best to try to seek a cross-European approach on the matter, my right hon. Friend will be aware that such agreements can take an awfully long time to reach. May I ask her to ensure that the process is expedited and, if necessary, to retain the right to take action, as urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), that would be primarily focused on protecting British jobs and the British economy?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important role of the ISTC and of course we are in touch with the union and with others representing steelworkers. I am very glad to say that today the ISTC has welcomed our Government's commitment to support the referral of America to the World Trade Organisation. Let me stress to my hon. Friend that that referral to the WTO dispute procedure has already been initiated. Similarly, Commissioner Lamy has already initiated the work required to invoke the safeguard clause of the European Community rules. As I have stressed repeatedly to the House, we will continue to work in line with the WTO rules, which do give us precisely the basis on which we can take speedy action to defend our steel industry against this appalling action.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and welcome the actions that are proposed to be taken with the WTO. In addition, I particularly welcome her comments about pressing for an exemption for producers of specialised steel exports during those negotiations with the WTO and others. May I bring to her attention the plight of a company in my constituency, Firth Cleveland—a small, specialist producer of high value, high quality cold strip steel? It has maintained a constant—I emphasise the word "constant"—export market in the United States, and has not flooded it. I understand that there is no domestic alternative for its products in the United States. May I ask her to ensure that interests such as those of that company, are adequately represented when we press for exemptions?

My hon. Friend has already drawn my attention to that company in his constituency, and we are already ensuring that we understand fully its position. The point that he makes about the high-value-added products that are being exported at a steady rate—no sudden surge of imports there—to the United States precisely underlines the point that I made earlier that the American action risks damaging its own manufacturing sector, precisely when that sector is beginning to emerge from the recession in America. Although it may seem ironic, we may well be acting in the interests of American manufacturing industry, as well as his and other steel producers, when we seek—I hope, successfully—the exemption for which he presses.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During last evening's debate in the House on whether this Parliament or the Scottish Parliament is responsible for approving new power stations in Scotland, especially nuclear power stations, Opposition parties tried eight times to elicit an answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, Scotland Office.

Simultaneous to that debate, the Minister for Industry and Energy was answering that question outside the House. Further confusion arises because most hon. Members understood the Ministers in that debate to say that Westminster would take the final decision, while the Minister for Industry and Energy was saying that it would be taken in Scotland. What protection is there for hon. Members who are involved in a debate in the House when Ministers of the Crown make contrary statements elsewhere? Does not that involve an element of discourtesy? How do we proceed now? Does a form of arbitration between Ministers exist? Do we toss a coin? Better still, could a statement be made to clarify the position once and for all?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I add my voice as one who is fervently pro-nuclear power stations? There should be clarification; this is an important issue.

May I tell both hon. Gentlemen that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for ministerial statements? The point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is, in a sense, a continuation of yesterday's debate. The principal point is that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers' statements on such matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to explain why he chose to disregard London Transport's advice not to publish the Ernst and Young report on value for money at London Underground because that would undermine the only competitive leverage left in negotiations? Would it be appropriate for him to come here to set out what assessment he has made of the commercial damage caused by his actions?

It is not for the occupant of the Chair to judge whether those matters are appropriate or inappropriate, and I have no knowledge of such a statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given the Chair notice. Yesterday afternoon I received a letter from the BBC signed by Michael Hastings CBE, who is described as head of political and parliamentary affairs. He has previously been brought to the attention of the Chair for his activities in the House.

The letter relates to the proceedings on which we are about to embark. It says:

"An inappropriate level of attention has been focused on the BBC and its regulation throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages in the Commons."

Mr. Hastings goes on to say:

"It is our hope that this Wednesday's debate will be more constructive".

Referring to amendments that have been tabled for the House to discuss on Report, he says:

"Amendments have again been tabled which seek to bypass the White Paper and propose an alternative model. The BBC rejects these options."

What can one do about the impertinence of a lobbyist who writes to the Chairman of a Select Committee on such matters in an offensive way? Could it be drawn to the BBC's attention that it has no power either to reject or to accept options that are laid before the House, because they are for us to debate and to decide? Is it not particularly unsatisfactory that the House of Commons should be treated in such a way by someone whose organisation is funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee, whose job is funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee and whose letter to me was funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee? Is it not a fact that that person has a vested interest in those amendments being rejected because they would affect not only the BBC, but himself? What can we do to deal with offensive communications of such a nature from a vested interest?

Chair has no control over communications of that kind made by people outside the House. I have no doubt, however, that the BBC will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that the House, too, will bear them in mind when it debates the amendments.