in the Chair]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 11 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.

TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "The Quality of Life in London and the South East" arising on an Opposition motion.

I understand that it will be a full day's debate, but the right hon. Gentleman might confirm that shortly.

WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 14 MARCH—Debate on women and equality on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 15 MARCH—Private Members Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

MONDAY 18 MARCH—Debate on hunting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that it has received so much consensus in the House.

TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.

THURSDAY 21 MARCH—There will be a debate on education: 14 to 19-year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 22 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.

The House may wish to be reminded that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Tuesday 26 March and return on Tuesday 9 April.

The House will wish to know that on Monday 18 March 2002 there will be a debate relating to enlargement in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Monday 18 March 2002:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 14117/01 and Addenda 1–13, The European Commission strategy paper on enlargement and reports on progress by applicants; 5745/02, Common Financial Framework 2004–2006 for Accession Negotiations. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xv and HC 152-xx (2001–02).]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing us with the forthcoming business.

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that at 11 o'clock this morning the Transport Committee produced its latest report, HC 680, on the public-private partnership for the London Underground. Extraordinarily, one of its conclusions is:

"The decision of the Secretary of State to proceed with the PPP on the back of such a vapid concluding statement from his independent advisers, Ernst & Young, must be questioned."

A Select Committee with a Labour majority—all Select Committees have such a majority—has questioned the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions. Members of the Committee are not the first persons to question his decisions, and they certainly will not be the last. The Committee then adds:

"It is essential that the Government allows Members a debate and vote in the House of Commons on a substantive motion on the future of the London Underground and the PPP.

Given the enormous respect that the Leader of the House has for Select Committees and his stated desire greatly to enhance their role, I am sure that he will be only too eager to confirm that there will not only be an early debate on this very important report, but that it will be on a substantive motion. I hope that he will be able to do that.

One of today's newspapers contains the headline, "Railtrack fiasco has shattered Blair's credibility in the City". It refers to the pronouncement by top fund managers in the City that said that the recent decision on Railtrack

"has shattered business trust in the Government."

The report adds that

"future private investment in public projects would be more expensive because of the perception of increased risk.

The surcharge has been dubbed 'the Byers premium'".

Another newspaper quotes the Secretary of State for Transport as undaunted by all that and reports:

"Mr. Byers claimed that the fund managers had fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Railtrack was a wholly private company".

That was not the impression that Labour Back Benchers had last week when they were only too eager to support the beleaguered Secretary of State when he appeared in the House. So will the Leader of the House tell us now or make arrangements to confirm later whether, as the Secretary of State claimed to the City, Railtrack is private or whether the Secretary of State wishes his colleagues to think that it is not private? May we have confirmation one way or another?

Today's edition of the Daily Mail has the headline, "Mittal: it gets worse". May we have a debate entitled, "How many Government Departments can you buy for £125,000"? We know, do we not, that No. 10 Downing street can be bought. We know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can be bought. Now it would appear that the Home Office can also be bought for that same £125,000. Has the Leader of the House been briefed to reply to the question whether this story about the Home Office and Mittal is true? In a friendly gesture, I would just sound a slight health warning for the Leader of the House, reminding him to be careful what he might say about any briefing that he has had. The truth is, is it not—it is now perfectly obvious—that the Government have been bought again? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to clarify this latest story about the rather ghastly Mr. Mittal.

Yesterday, Richard Balfe, the most senior Labour Member of the European Parliament, joined the Conservative party. It is interesting that—

You can have him.

I hear the hon. Gentleman—

He is in favour of the euro.

When giving his reasons for joining the Conservative party, Mr. Balfe accused the Prime Minister of ruling Labour by fear, and then he said, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, that

"the Tory party under lain Duncan Smith is a tolerant party that accepts differing opinions and encourages debate."

It is just as well; otherwise some of us might not survive very long.

I introduce the subject of Mr. Balfe because he obviously feels that there is no scope within the Labour party for any sort of debate or difference of view, and I remind the Leader of the House that recently, at this Dispatch Box, I had to defend his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) from a vicious attack by none other than the Foreign Secretary. Now I find that I must try to defend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who has been viciously attacked by his supposed hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). At column 88WH—I cannot imagine what that stands for—of yesterday's Hansard, the junior Minister said about his alleged hon. Friend that he was

"an apologist…a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years."

That then gave rise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin saying:

"The Minister is a liar"

and

"The Minister told a lie about me."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 88WH.]

Will the Leader of the House take his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary aside and give him some quiet advice on how Ministers should stop abusing Labour Back Benchers to such an extent, otherwise they will all leave his party and join mine?

The Conservative party must be more desperate for members than we imagined if the right hon. Gentleman really hopes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will defect to it. My hon. Friend is making a personal statement later this afternoon. I shall listen to it with interest, but I do not anticipate that the climax of that will be his joining the tolerant party of the right hon. Gentleman.

As for Mr. Richard Balfe, I am trying to come to terms with his departure with all the equanimity that I can muster, and the right hon. Gentleman will need all the equanimity that he can muster to work with him as a colleague, particularly on the euro.

I will, of course, study with care the Transport Committee's report, but I remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman—this seems to have slipped his mind— that the conclusion of the Ernst and Young study was that the analysis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport spoke was robust. I will, of course, consider whether we should hold a further debate on that matter. The House has considered the issue on a number of occasions, and I am sure that it will do so again.

On the City and the funding of public-private partnerships, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, despite the alarmism that he seeks to spread further, since last summer there have been 44 new PPPs signed with City firms without any problem about their coming forward and offering the funding. Indeed, the Chiltern line, which will be known to several of his hon. Friends given that, on the whole, it serves areas that managed to survive their debacles at the last two general elections, has just attracted £370 million of private finance without anyone complaining about additional risk premium or the risk of that funding.

Of course, a fundamental question remains, which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are for ever failing to answer. If they had found themselves in the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, are they really saying that they would have paid out the money to Railtrack and left it in the hands not just of a private legal company, but one with private shareholders whom it repeatedly put before the travelling public, who are glad to see the back of it?

The right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear that I can help him on Mr. Mittal and the newspaper story. First, the correspondence began with a request from the Belgian authorities, not with any request from Mr. Mittal. Secondly, Mr. Mittal is not under any investigation by the Belgian authorities; on the contrary, they were seeking evidence from him as a witness against one of his competitors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Corns."] [Laughter.] I honestly do not understand what Opposition Members find in any way amusing about our seeking perfectly properly to assist another European country with a legal investigation that it is carrying out.

I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) say this morning that such things never happened during his time at the Home Office. It may therefore help him if I say that the organisation that handles and processes such correspondence—the UK central authority for mutual legal assistance—was set up in 1990 by the Conservative party. Every year, it deals with some 4,000 items of correspondence from other judicial authorities. When the right hon. and learned Member was Home Secretary it undoubtedly processed many thousands of identical requests. I suppose that we should be grateful to him for having made it clear that he had no idea whatever what was being done by the Home Office while he was Home Secretary. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would like to debate that further, I would welcome it.

As we are on the topic of Mr. Mittal, I would welcome a debate in which we could explore from where came the £43 million in donations that the Conservative party received in its last year in office. Conservative Members have never come clean as to who they received that money from or what they did for them, but we know one or two of the donors.

Asil Nadir.

They received £400,000 from Asil Nadir, as my hon. Friend cries out, on the basis of his fraudulent company in northern Cyprus. They promised that they would return that money, but they never did so. I understand that they have just received several million from Lord Ashcroft, who, when he was appointed as a peer, said that he would like to be known as Lord Ashcroft of Belize. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to explore those matters further in a debate, we would be delighted to do so, and we would like to hear some answers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the "What the Papers Say" script that we have just heard from the shadow Leader of the House, he was certainly right about one thing: the greater tolerance of the current leader of the Conservative party, who showed himself tolerant enough to appoint the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Leader of the House?

May I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming the debate on hunting in the provisional business for 18 March? Will he confirm to me—as a Labour Member who, when in government, used the Parliament Act to obtain the enactment of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—that there is no obstacle whatever to using the Parliament Act to enact a new Bill passed by this House in this Parliament? Will he therefore assure me that, if the will of the House makes it very clear that it wishes a complete ban on hunting with hounds, the Government will ensure that such a Bill is passed, using the Parliament Act if necessary?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that I said in response to questions last week that we will have a vote on hunting on 18 March and, indeed, so will the other place. Thereafter, the Minister for Rural Affairs will be seeking to find a way forward and will make proposals before the Easter recess. That will involve legislation at some stage, but it is a bit premature to speculate about a point which, on that timetable, is not likely to arise for at least another 18 months.

May I assure the Leader of the House that we, too, would support a debate on the failed privatisation of Railtrack and its relevance to the part-privatisation of the tube, if only because we could then establish whether the Conservative party was still in favour of privatisation, having botched it the first time around?

May I ask that we have a debate as early as possible on the private purchase of politicians? The Leader of the House may recall that, a few weeks ago, he gave a dismissive reply to my request for such a debate on its relevance to the future funding of democracy in this country. Today it is reported that his right hon. Friend the chairman of the Labour party has been having secret talks with the chairman of the Conservative party on the subject of state funding for the political parties and the political process. I do not know whether this is a private fight, or whether anyone can join in.

May I suggest that that debate should take place in this House and not behind the scenes between the representatives of the two dinosaur parties? There is genuine public concern about the extent to which successive Governments—the Leader of the House referred to this just now—have been dependent on private donations. We need to establish once and for all what those poor, benighted creatures were doing in making those contributions and whether they got value for money.

May we have a statement before Easter on the subject of Lords reform? The Leader of the House said that he was seeking a centre of gravity. The excellent and unanimous report by the Select Committee on Public Administration offers him an opportunity to create precisely that consensus and centre of gravity. Can I suggest that now the consultation period is long over, and that his White Paper—[Interruption.] Not the Leader of the House's White Paper; the Lord Chancellor's White Paper—I am sorry to have maligned the right hon. Gentleman in that way. Now that the Lord Chancellor's White Paper has been thoroughly discussed, it is time for the House to move on.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his characterisation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me as members of the dinosaur parties. In fairness to my colleagues, I am entitled to point out that the party of Gladstone is somewhat older than the party that I represent. The hon. Gentleman might wish to reflect on where the tag of "the oldest party" should be attached.

May I deal with the point about political parties by stepping back and looking at it a little more widely than I am afraid the media do? Our parliamentary democracy cannot function without political parties; that is the nature of democracy. We require political parties to be in good health and to have some source of funding. If it is the case that the media and some hon. Members are moving to the view that private donations are unacceptable, there has to be an acceptance of alternative ways in which political parties are funded. That is why it is entirely legitimate for members of both parties to have discussions and to explore and debate whether there should be state funding. There is no commitment to that on the part of the Government and I think that the chairman of the Conservative party might have some difficulty in carrying all the members of the Conservative Front Bench on this question.

indicated assent.

I am grateful for that confirmation.

On the issue of House of Lords reform and the hon. Gentleman's point about the Public Administration Committee, I welcome one general point about the report, which is that it proves that it is possible for those who want reform of the second Chamber to reach agreement on what should be the shape of that reform. What has repeatedly worried me—I have expressed this to the House—is that, for decades, we have failed to proceed with root and branch reform of the second Chamber because those who are in favour of reform have been unable to agree on the shape of it. The Select Committee has done us a service by proving unanimously and without division that those in favour of reform are able to reach agreement. I am encouraged by that to continue with the search for a centre of gravity. I am also encouraged to recognise that doing nothing need not be an option.

In yesterday's Hansard, the Prime Minister replied to me:

"When decisions do have to be taken on Iraq, of course we will come and consult the House properly as we should."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 297.]

Could it be confirmed next week that such consultation will take place before there is a commitment to military action, and not after?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically helpful question. May I gently point out to him that the Prime Minister said that no decision has been taken, and no one anticipates one being taken in the near or medium future? Indeed, there is no timetable or process by which such a decision could be taken. It would therefore be ludicrously premature for me as Leader of the House to commit myself to what the House may do in the event of a hypothetical outcome that is not expected for many months.

In any event, the Government have demonstrated, with the recent crisis in Afghanistan, a willingness, enthusiasm and keenness to hear from the House. We have had five separate full-day debates on that issue in which, if I remember rightly, my hon. Friend was careful to give his views at length, as I am sure he will do when we debate it again.

May we have a statement on the Government's relations with industry and trade unions? Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said that the concerns of City fund managers about the financing of public-private projects were motivated by self-interest. Today we read on the front page of The Times that he is crawling back to them by reneging on pledges on workers' rights that he has made to trade unions. Can the Prime Minister make a clear statement to the House on where he stands? Now that we all know the way in which the Government operate, can we be told how much more money the unions would have to pay the Government to get a change of policy?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to correct the statements in this morning's press. We issued a consultation document last September on the preservation of pension rights. It listed a number of options that have been out for consultation. They are being discussed in the Government and no decision has been made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable disquiet in companies up and down the country because of the demise of final salary occupational pension schemes? Will he make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on that important issue to reassure the many people who are worried and to see what can be done to support them?

My hon. Friend raises a profound and serious issue for the nation. Many of us are going to live longer than before, so it is all the more important to ensure that there are adequate pension schemes to take people through what will also be a longer period of retirement. I very much regret the decline in the number of final year pension schemes. I note that some of the companies that have started the process of erosion of those schemes have not shown any erosion in the pensions they award to their senior executives. I will convey my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I assure him that the Government will follow the issue closely.

May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the general concern about Iraq? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange an early debate on the Floor of the House, led by the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, on Iraq? Will he consider publishing at an early date a document that sets out and identifies the chief areas of concern in the context of Iraq? In the event of the Government deciding to take or to support action, including military action, outside what goes on in the no-fly zones, will he seek the support of the House on a substantive motion, even if that authority has to be given retrospectively, which is where I slightly depart from the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has floated an alternative option to that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The request is ludicrously premature in terms of what may, or may not, be happening. No decision has been taken, and none may ever be taken. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend have produced two different approaches shows that we need to consider the matter carefully before we commit ourselves to one or other way of proceeding.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's other point related to the grounds of concern about Iraq. At the present time I do not think that there would be any difficulty for the Government putting in the public domain a response to the areas of concern to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded, but those issues are well known and unarguable. The fact is that the Iraqi regime has several thousands of unaccounted litres of toxic chemicals that would be appropriate to use in a chemical weapon; it has made considerable investment in developing biological germ agents that could be used in biological weapons; and has proceeded intensively—and appears to be continuing to do so—with medium-range missiles that could deliver such warheads. In addition, of course, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in his attack on an innocent village of Kurds, wiping out 5,000 women, children and elderly men with mustard gas.

Given that history and the present record, it is entirely proper that the world should take action through every available channel, starting with the United Nations, to ensure that Saddam Hussein accepts what the rest of the world accepts: no regime should have access to weapons of mass destruction unless it fully participates in international regimes to control proliferation.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report of the European Parliament on relations between the European Parliament and national Parliaments on European integration? It refers to

"the growing disaffection, disappointment and distrust regarding the development of the Union",

and goes on to talk about

"a fear of helplessness in the face of imposed decisions which cannot be influenced or controlled".

In the light of the fact that constitutional convention is considering many of the issues developing in the Union, what arrangements will be made for debates in this House—as the convention proceeds, and not just at the end of it—and what arrangements might be made to help Members promote the debate outside the House, since our colleagues in the European Parliament receive large amounts of money to promote their arguments?

My hon. Friend will be aware that this House is represented directly by two Members—one from our party, who has been elected to the collective presidency of the convention and is therefore well placed to monitor its proceedings and agenda, and one who represents the Opposition, who no doubt also represents their strong views against Europe and will be making his own strong commitment to it and reporting to us at great length.

I anticipate that, as the convention proceeds, it will be a matter of repeated discussion in the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will be frequently before the House giving an account of it. We have had discussions on the process by which Members of the House and of the convention can report to Committees of the House, but I very much share my hon. Friend's concern that the debate should not simply be one within the convention or, indeed, between the convention and national Parliaments. The debate must also embrace the wider population and the civic community of Europe. I very much hope that high on the convention's agenda is the means of ensuring that it carries out exercises in listening to that civic community.

Will the Leader of the House think carefully about the comment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and bear in mind the tradition of consensus across the House when discussing pension legislation and the future of pensions? Although there is much discussion at the moment in the House on legislation affecting second pensions, pension plus and stakeholder pensions, there has not been an opportunity to discuss the serious, long-term and deep effects on security in retirement. Will he therefore look favourably on the possibility of an Adjournment debate in which we can consider such issues and subject them to the measured and informed discussion that they badly need?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when dealing with the question of our citizens' income over a prolonged period—that might be two or three decades in retirement—it is important that we provide them with the stability and confidence of a cross-party approach, which is why many of us on the Labour Benches regretted that one of the Conservative Government's first acts after election in 1979 was to scrap the new pension scheme that the Labour Government had introduced. Had that been honoured by the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman's appeal for a cross-party approach might have more resonance. However, I agree that we should try again to build that consensus, and I am sure that there will be opportunities to debate it in the months ahead.

I failed narrowly to get in my question to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, so may I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues in that Department to make a statement in the House on organophosphates? He will know that organophosphate sheep dips were withdrawn from the market a few years, but reintroduced in October 2000. However, this month, a significant research report has been published in The Lancet by Professor Nicola Cherry, who tells us that the results of her research

"suggest that organophosphates contribute to the reported ill health of people who dip sheep."

The issue is a huge one in farming communities, and it is worthy of a Minister coming to the House urgently to tell us what the Government's position is.

I can only express my deep regret that my hon. Friend did not have a chance to put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rather than to me, but I shall make a point of writing to my right hon. Friend this afternoon so that honour is served.

May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of Lords reform? Has he had time to read a perceptive piece by Hugo Young—no relation—in The Guardian today? He says of the Government's proposals:

"Tranquillity beckons. Relief from a project too few of them really want…Deliverance into comfortable inertia."

Will the right hon. Gentleman dispel those allegations by promising an early debate on the Government's forthcoming response to the Public Administration Committee report, in which the Government's proposals will be set out clearly?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I begin every Thursday by reading The Guardian; it ensures that I come to the House in a suitably combative mood.

As the House knows, we are currently considering the responses to our consultation exercise. We received about 1,000 responses, many of a thoughtful and serious character. We shall at some stage publish an analysis of the responses, and respond to the PAC within two months. Obviously, the matter will have to return to the House at some stage, but I think it appropriate that we take time to get it right before it does so.

In December last year, the Minister for Industry and Energy made a welcome statement that, after 17 years, he was to right a wrong done to sacked miners throughout the country, several hundred of whom were sacked during the miners' strike. To date, nothing further has been said. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made in the near future?

I know that strong feelings attach to that issue and that it is important to a large number of people in my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall make sure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as soon as possible.

The Leader of the House may have picked up vibrations in the press about the Government's undoubted generosity in granting accommodation to Members who are absent from the House and their staff when sitting Members who attend regularly still do not have adequate accommodation. Is he in a position to offer guidance on the steps that would be taken to discipline a party that is not yet prepared to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and whose defeated candidate in the Belfast, South constituency at the last election—a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly—joined others to intimidate people by putting up posters urging them not to join the police service, while at the same time encouraging their own form of restorative justice, a do-it-yourself kangaroo court?

I am sure that the whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in deprecating such activity, but the House has no mechanism to discipline its Members for activities undertaken outside the Chamber or the House—nor should it. Many hon. Members motivated by perfectly bona fide commitments and beliefs of their own carry out activities that the House would neither endorse nor be drawn to condemn.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we debated the matter before Christmas considerable concern was expressed that Members are required to register only on taking the Oath, rather than on being elected. I am pleased that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has made a recommendation to the effect that registration should be required of all Members on the point of election or within three months of election. I hope to introduce a motion giving effect to that recommendation before Easter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-party group on children in Wales agreed last week to support in principle the aims of 'Sdim Curo Plant!—the Welsh campaign to ban the physical punishment of children and to give children the same protection as adults under the law of assault? I am sure that he is aware that the Scottish Executive propose to ban the physical punishment of all children under three. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important subject so that we can consider how it affects children in England and Wales and raise the important issues associated with it?

My hon. Friend raises a subject of considerable debate. She is aware that strong and different views are held on both sides of the fence, which is why the Government have sought to make sure that they find the right balance between the protection of the child and the rights and responsibilities of the parent. As a Scottish MP, I fully support and welcome what is being done in the Scottish Parliament, but the principle of devolution is the right of each side to take whatever action it regards as appropriate for its side of the border.

When the right hon. Gentleman was replying to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader on concerns about PPP, he pointed out that there have been a number of successful PPPs in the recent past. He will, however, have heard a succession of leaders of the financial community on the "Today" programme this morning and elsewhere saying that a risk premium would undoubtedly be imposed for future PPPs as a result of the actions of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is a matter for real concern, as the Government's credibility is in considerable danger. Will the right hon. Gentleman set in place methods to monitor the future rates of return from PPP submissions, if indeed he can get anybody to do it at all, so that we can see whether those fears are justified? Can those figures be published, unlike the unpublished figures relating to London Transport, and if there is cause for concern, can we have a debate on the matter?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every PPP is subject to tests of value for money, which require an analysis of what the future costs will be and how that compares with public sector traditional funding. No PPP will proceed unless it passes that value for money test. As I told the House, more than 40 such schemes have passed that test since it became clear that Railtrack could no longer continue. What would the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends who raise the issue have done in the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend found himself last autumn? Are they saying that they would have volunteered £5 billion, the sum that would have been required to keep Railtrack afloat, in the full knowledge that the company had given hundreds of millions to its shareholders while skimping on investment for the travelling public?

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the closure of Smurfit Corrugated in my constituency, with the loss of 94 jobs? Does he agree that a company which fails properly to consult its workers, which fails to give adequate reasons for choosing the Warrington plant for closure and which, it is suspected, will take the savings from that closure to invest abroad, should be held to account on the Floor of the House? Should we not have the opportunity to debate not just that closure, but the chances of providing better protection for British workers caught up in such situations?

My hon. Friend rightly and properly raises a matter of anxiety for her constituents and an issue that must be of serious concern in her constituency. There are ways in which she can ventilate that through the House. It is important that we make sure that we get the right balance of rights in the workplace, and the Government have taken action to ensure that there are fair rights at the workplace. We must get the right balance between the provision of skilled flexible labour that will attract investment, and the decent protection of that labour from unemployment.

As the Leader of the House was present in the Chamber yesterday to hear Northern Ireland's First Minister tell the Prime Minister clearly how much it would undermine him and others who supported the Belfast agreement if the Government went ahead with an amnesty for terrorists on the run, can he give us an assurance today that no such amnesty will be granted? I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. As he clearly does not intend to give us such an assurance, will he at the very least say that the suggestions in the press that the amnesty will occur over Easter are quite wrong, and that the House should be allowed to debate the matter before a decision is taken?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be rather startled if I were to rule out or rule in what he must do. I have always made it perfectly plain that we want to ensure that the peace process succeeds. If time is required in the House to ensure that that happens, I shall, as Leader of the House, ensure that it is made available.

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the membership of Select Committees? In particular, does he share my concern about the continued inclusion on the Defence Committee of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who remains a member of that Committee despite his recent appointment to the Opposition Front Bench as a defence spokesman? He is indeed a very honourable man; I get on with him well and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, I feel that his membership dilutes the independence of the Committee and threatens its ability to achieve cross-party consensus.

I understand that this matter was raised in the Liaison Committee this morning, and I shall be very happy to discuss it with the Chairman of that Committee so that I can understand and reflect the collective views of the Select Committee Chairmen. It would be generally held to be desirable for Select Committees, which carry out scrutiny and seek to find cross-party agreements on their reports wherever possible, not to include Front Benchers from either side of the Chamber. However, I say to my hon. Friend that we must also be understanding of the fact that the official Opposition are so small they might need Front Benchers to be included.

Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity to debate in Government time the latest privatisation in the Ministry of Defence? The privatisation of fleet support services affects 4,000 jobs in Rosyth, Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane. Will he give the House a proper chance to scrutinise the way in which the process has operated? We need to give some confidence to the work force that the 1,000-odd projected redundancies will be considered properly, and the House needs to be satisfied that the MOD has properly gone through all the processes for considering the bids for the work. There is currently widespread dissatisfaction about the way in which the matter has been handled and a resistance on the part of the MOD to come to the House to justify the position that it has taken.

This sounds like exactly the sort of issue that the Defence Select Committee could pursue if it were minded to do so. None the less, I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and invite my right hon. Friend to write to him.

I support the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for a debate on the manufacturing industry and employee protection. Problems in the industry are hitting towns such as Leigh especially hard. Leigh has lost thousands of jobs in recent years in coal mining and textiles, and we now face the injustice of 220 people being made redundant from Volex on terms that are by far inferior to those applying to counterparts in the Republic of Ireland who work for the same company. Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a debate on the process of redundancy, how it is hurting families and how we might do more to protect employees who are being made redundant?

In recent weeks, a number of colleagues have requested a debate on manufacturing industry. I am acutely aware of those demands and keep them very much in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will open a debate in the House next week in pursuit of one of her other responsibilities, but I am conscious of the wish on both sides of the House for a debate on this matter. I shall see whether we can accommodate some way of ventilating these issues if time is available.

In calling for urgent clarification from the Leader of the House, I seek to draw to the House's attention a matter that will concern Opposition, Government and minor party Members. On 30 January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about worsening waiting times in accident and emergency departments. The Prime Minister replied—I refer to column 281 of Hansard —that the method of measuring such things had changed. Indeed, he said that it had changed under this Government. Given that ministerial replies from both this Government and the previous one make it absolutely clear that these figures are collated and collected centrally only by the Audit Commission, I was surprised to receive a note from the Library saying:

"The Audit Commission has used the same indicators since 1996".

The note also said:

"If Mr. Blair's response suggests that measurement methods have changed and that therefore the figures quoted by Mr. Duncan Smith are incomparable, it appears to be misplaced."

That is a serious matter. Given the Prime Minister's scrupulous regard for straightforwardness and accuracy—if only Hansard could measure irony—he will want to make an urgent statement to the House about the source of his information and the basis on which he made the claim. If it is inaccurate, he will want to apologise to hon. Members, for it is inconceivable that he would deliberately mislead the House.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important, highly detailed and technical point. He will forgive me if I say that I do not believe that it would assist me or hon. Members if I attempted to answer it without either notice or considering the facts. However, I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Health responds to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the issue.

The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 943, which looks forward to the celebrations for Europe day on 9 May, the anniversary of the date on which Robert Schuman presented his proposals for creating a European Community.

[That this House looks forward to the opportunity for the United Kingdom to celebrate Europe Day on 9th May; recognises that 9th May marks the day in 1950 that Robert Schuman presented his proposal for the creation of the European Union; notes that the European Union has been central to the maintenance of peaceful relations and coexistence on this continent ever since; welcomes the opportunity for the UK to join in this annual celebration of the diversity of cultures that exist within Europe; and celebrates the UK's membership of the European Union.]

Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on Thursday 9 May to mark Britain's continued, positive involvement in Europe?

I am tempted to agree to such a debate if only to enable Mr. Richard Balfe to tell us his views on Conservative European policy.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the disposal of surplus national health service accommodation? A group of people in Wirksworth in my constituency would like the NHS care centre that was closed recently to be converted into accommodation for elderly people. That service is desperately needed in the town. A similar arrangement to that in Buxton, whereby the property was sold at a lower cost to local residents, could solve the problem.

The hon. Gentleman has been able to raise an issue of concern to his constituency. However, I am not sure that the best way to proceed is through centrally imposed guidelines or requirements. Obviously, when appropriate and effective alternative uses that meet other social care or health needs can be found for NHS premises, the local health authority should provide for that. However, there is an alternative. In the case of large, commercially profitable sites—there is an example in my constituency—ploughing the money back into other parts of the health service is frankly best for the community. However, decisions should be made case by case, not centrally.

In view of the Chancellor's actions to eradicate child poverty and the new Child Poverty Action Group report, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the subject in the Chamber? Britain has a population of 55 million, but the report states that Glasgow, with a small population of 600,000, has four of the 10 most deprived areas. It has suffered high infant mortality, horrendous housing problems and unemployment. I would like the Government to eradicate the poverty that the previous Government left behind them, especially in Glasgow.

We will hold the Budget debate next month. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will refer to child poverty and the action that we are taking to tackle and, over a period of time, to eradicate it. Like my hon. Friend, I heard the Chancellor speak on the matter yesterday, and I was impressed by the progress that we are making. We inherited a legacy of rapidly rising child poverty from the Conservative Government and we are taking action to decrease it rapidly. That is the right priority for the nation and the Government.

On Tuesday, we spent three hours debating whether final planning consent for new nuclear power stations lay with the House or the Scottish Parliament. Although we did not get an answer to a clear question, we got the strong impression that final consent lay with the House. Meanwhile, the Minister for Energy and Industry, who should have responded to the debate, made a speech in Scotland that strongly suggested that the decision lay with the Scottish Parliament. What can the Leader of the House do to protect hon. Members from Ministers' contradictory statements? When can we have an early statement to clarify the issue?

The hon. Gentleman has just had a three-hour debate on the topic of his choice. He cannot really expect that to be followed by a statement in the House. It is rich for the Scottish National party to complain when Ministers go to Scotland. I should have thought that they would welcome every possible visit to Scotland by the appropriate Ministers. As I said last week, this matter has to be dealt with in partnership, whatever the legal niceties, and that is the way in which we shall proceed with the Administration in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] I should like to know whether the Conservative party—if it ever got into power—could offer the same kind of partnership with the Scottish Executive that we can.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on mobile telecommunications masts, an issue that probably affects every constituency in the country? There has been a recent proposal in my constituency for a mast between, and very close to, two primary schools, which flies in the face of the recommendation in the Stewart report—a Government report—that masts should not be located near such schools. The problem is that although PPG8 has been strengthened—for which I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government—it did not go far enough in incorporating some of the Stewart report's recommendations, particularly the recommendation that such masts should be kept well away from primary schools. May we have a debate, or at least a statement, on that issue?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the conclusion of the Stewart report, based on the available scientific evidence, was that there is no general health risk from mobile telecommunications masts. However, I fully understand why parents are particularly anxious when they see such masts being located near schools—and, sometimes, on schools—having had experience of this in my constituency. I shall certainly convey to the Department my hon. Friend's concern that that recommendation in the Stewart report should be acted on.

Bearing in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in strengthening the role of Select Committees as part of the modernisation of the House, does he agree that the announcement on the declassification of cannabis by the Home Secretary at a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee just two weeks before the Committee commenced an investigation into drugs policy, and the announcement in the media today by the drugs Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—on how to make it easier and safer for people to take dance drugs in night clubs, undermine the role of the Select Committee?

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady's concern that the Home Secretary's making a statement to the Select Committee somehow undermines it. Personally, I welcome that innovation, and I am sure that many of my right hon. Friends will consider making further such use of Select Committees. If we want Select Committees to carry out their functions properly, and to have a proper status in this place, it is entirely right that they should occasionally receive new announcements from the appropriate Secretary of State.

I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the good work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on asbestosis in respect of the Chester Street insurance company. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the companies that agreed to pay compensation to asbestosis sufferers—and any future sufferers—are now reneging on the deal? They will not pay out any money, even to those who have received letters stating that their compensation has been granted, which means that the compensation has been printed out on paper but is not worth the paper that it is printed on. Will he arrange a debate on this serious issue, so that we can name and shame those companies?

I fully share my hon. Friend's deep regret at behaviour that appears to be deplorable. I am sure that many hon. Members will share the sense of outrage that his constituents no doubt feel. On the facts as stated, I would be surprised if there were no legal remedy available to those who are most affected, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue the matter and make full use of the facilities of the House to do so.

On the day on which the Office of Public Services Reform at the Cabinet Office is issuing no fewer than 10,000 pamphlets to the public services, and on which Mr. Ian Jones, the head of news at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, remains suspended without charge, may I ask for a debate in Government time on the operation and management of the civil and public services, the criteria for the maintenance of standards, and the accountability and responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers?

I have no intention of saying anything on the question of the civil servant who has been suspended pending an investigation. It is a matter for the permanent secretary to announce the conclusion of that investigation and it would not help either the individual concerned or the permanent secretary for the rest of us to get drawn into a political debate on it in the meantime.

On the publication today of the pamphlet that has been delivered to up to 10,000 senior officials in the public service, it is proper and right that the Government should try to ensure that those who work in the public service understand the extent to which their contribution is valued and the broad strategy to which they are working. It would be the act of a bad employer and an inefficient manager not to ensure that that message is understood throughout the service. I notice that the Conservative party is calling for the decentralisation of the health service, which it highly centralised, so the hon. Gentleman should be pleased to hear that one of the four main themes of the pamphlet is flexibility through the decentralisation of power and resources to those in the front line.

Can we destroy at birth the self-serving fantasy promulgated by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) that there has been a political consensus on pension policy in recent years? There was no consensus in 1980 for the cut in the link with earnings, or for the salami cuts over the following 17 years. There was no consensus in 1985 on the partial destruction of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has done great damage. There was certainly no consensus on the policy in the late 1980s, when many people were tempted by the then Government to leave their good-value occupational schemes and go into atrocious-value personal pensions. We should have a good debate on this issue, but we must ensure that the blame is laid firmly where it belongs, which is not with the Government, because we opposed every one of those dangerous changes that have seriously impoverished today's pensioners and will impoverish tomorrow's pensioners.

My hon. Friend and I were members of the same team in opposition on social security and pensions, and he was an excellent shadow spokesman on pensions.

Those were the days.

I prefer these days, and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) also preferred it when he was on the Government side. My hon. Friend has had slightly longer to work on it, but he has given a much better reply than I did, and I commend him on it.

Can the Leader of the House help with a serious question that I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of the small business community? I asked her to give a response to the Competition Commission's report on banking that was presented in October last year, and she said that she would publish the report as soon as practicable. That is an extraordinary, off-hand and cavalier response to a question that relates back to the Cruickshank report on banking, which was published two years ago this month. Can the Leader of the House help us to obtain a response to the report?

The hon. Gentleman said that he asked my right hon. Friend to publish the report, but I think that he meant publish the Government's response to it.

Yes.

It is important for the Government to ensure that the response is well thought through and consulted on, because it is not a matter of one Department reaching a view. It is important that time is taken to get it right, rather than rushing it. The time frame that the hon. Gentleman referred to is not unusual, but I am sure that the Department will be well aware of his anxiety to see the response.

Following a week in which a Manchester United footballer signed a contract to earn £90.000 a week with the prospect of others being paid even more, in which ITV Digital announced that it was forced to renegotiate its contract with the Football League because it could not afford to pay the original price for television rights, and in which Bury football club in my constituency became the latest club in the lower divisions to go into receivership, does my right hon. Friend agree that the globalisation of football is having serious consequences for small clubs in the lower divisions, which many thousands of people support? Does he agree that those clubs have a vital role to play in their communities, as well as contributing to our national sporting life? May we have an early debate on the future of small professional football clubs?

My hon. Friend is correct about the importance of football clubs to local communities and local identity, which is why I am delighted that Livingston football club is currently beaten in the Scottish league only by Rangers and Celtic. That has done wonders for identity and pride in the city for the people of Livingston and the residents of West Lothian. That shows the success that can be achieved by a small club that only six years ago was in the third division. I recognise that it is important that we have a proper range of football clubs in the various communities of Britain, and that we do not end up with only mega-clubs.

These are choppy waters. I think that I have managed to build consensus in the House by avoiding controversy, but this matter is of such deep controversy outside it that although I shall report my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, I am not inclined to go further at the present time.

Will the Leader of the House be good enough to inquire now about the availability of Ministers to respond to urgent matters raised during the Easter Adjournment debate? I have used—and will continue to use—every opportunity to raise the urgent matter of the proposed demolition of important world war two buildings at the Dunkeswell airfield in my constituency. If I raise the matter in the Adjournment debate, it will be because I understand that Defence Estates has set a deadline of 1 April for the demolition of buildings that Defence Ministers previously have helped to preserve and that English Heritage has commended. If I do not get a positive response, I may end up spending my Easter recess chained to the control tower. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will come to my rescue, and to the rescue of a very important world war two memorial site.

I feel under a very strong compulsion to try to find a way to avert that fate for the hon. Lady, and to prevent her from spending her Easter recess in that way. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be grateful for the advance notice of what the hon. Lady will raise in the Easter Adjournment debate, and I think that he is open to hearing other advance bids. I hope that the hon. Lady secures an outcome that is satisfactory for her constituents, but I am sure that we all look forward to hearing what she has to say in the debate.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the UK ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Following agreement at the European Community Environment Council on Monday, I am very pleased to announce that the Government have today laid the Kyoto protocol before both Houses of Parliament. This significant step begins the formal process of UK ratification of what is a hugely important protocol.

This House is aware of the leading role that the Government have always played in the fight against climate change and, in particular, of the pivotal role played by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the original negotiations on the protocol in Kyoto. We have maintained that lead in subsequent negotiations, and we are making strong progress with implementing a strategic and innovative programme of action to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. I firmly believe that the UK, as well as the rest of world, has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on.

The deal that I helped to secure, first in Bonn and then in Marrakesh last year, was the latest in a series of major political achievements, and it paved the way for ratification. Since then, the EU has set an aim for the Kyoto protocol to enter into force in time for the world summit on sustainable development at the end of August. That summit marks the 10th anniversary of the Rio earth summit, which set up the UN framework convention on climate change in the first place. Although we do not expect or wish climate change, as such, to feature prominently on the summit's agenda, entry into force of the protocol before the summit takes place will demonstrate beyond doubt the world's commitment to taking its environmental responsibilities seriously.

The Environment Council's agreement on Monday to the Council decision on European Community ratification and to the EU "bubble" was a significant milestone. This needed to happen first, so that the reduction targets agreed politically by each member state in 1998 became legally fixed. I was delighted with the outcome of the Council meeting, which followed some detailed and, at times, sensitive negotiations. It means that all member states can now complete their own national ratification procedures, and that the EU and its member states will be the first of the key developed countries to ratify the protocol.

This Government are wasting no time in ensuring that the UK ratifies the protocol as soon as possible. Today's event marks the start of our process. The protocol will be before Parliament for the next 21 sitting days. At the end of that period, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will sign the UK's instrument of ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK will deposit its instrument with the UN depository at the same time as the European Community and other member states. We aim to do that by June at the latest.

UK ratification of the Kyoto protocol sends an important message to the world that we are committed to tackling climate change. It reaffirms the Government's pledge to meet our environmental objectives, and it meets our manifesto commitment to provide leadership abroad and work for international agreement on climate change.

I hope very much that countries not yet committed to ratifying will follow the EU's lead. The House will know that the United States recently announced proposals for domestic action to tackle climate change. We welcome President Bush's acceptance that climate change is a serious problem and his increased support for climate science and climate-friendly innovation, but our analysis of his proposals suggests that US greenhouse gas emissions will be about 25 per cent. higher in 2010 than in 1990. That contrasts starkly with the 7 per cent. reduction to which the US had originally agreed under Kyoto.

We continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol represents the only workable option allowing the international community to proceed with serious action on climate change, and we hope that the US will re-engage with the process. It is of course extremely important that we maintain a constructive dialogue with the Americans on climate change, and we will seek to establish a process through which that can be achieved.

UK ratification will mean that we become legally bound by the target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Our climate change programme sets out a range of policies that could reduce emissions by 23 per cent. by 2010, which is well in excess of our Kyoto target and stands us in good stead for future reductions. The programme therefore also addresses the Government's ambitious domestic goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

Our climate change programme is providing a strategic focus for action. It is stimulating positive action by UK businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low-carbon economy, and it is implementing a series of innovative and creative policies to ensure that the UK cuts its emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.

Let me highlight the key policies. We have established the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by a Government incentive of £215 million over five years. The scheme is due to go live early next month, and is one of our major priorities. Emissions trading is a cost-effective way of making a low-carbon future a reality. In pioneering the scheme, we hope and intend that the City of London will become the world centre for emissions trading.

We have set a target to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010, backed by Government funding of at least £250 million over the next three years. We aim to double, at least, the UK capacity of combined heat and power by 2010. We will publish our draft CHP strategy shortly, along with a range of measures intended to achieve the target.

We have introduced a climate change levy package that will help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business; and we have established the Carbon Trust, which will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take-up of cost-effective low-carbon technologies. There are also a range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector.

At European Union level, we have secured voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent., backed up by changes in vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage more fuel-efficient low-emission cars. Our 10-year plan for transport will address projected emissions growth in that key sector.

The programme takes account of what we might need to do to adapt to the effects of climate change in the UK. The Government are taking early action to identify adaptation priorities, and supporting the introduction of adaptation strategies on the ground through the UK climate impacts programme.

Our programme also begins to establish policies to reduce emissions in the longer term, beyond 2012. We know that Kyoto, while important in itself, is only a first step, and that much deeper cuts in emissions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. The Government are determined to continue towards a low-carbon economy in a way that benefits both the environment and UK industry. This is one reason why we commissioned the recent performance and innovation unit energy report, which we are now considering and to which we will respond later this year.

I would like to finish by restating the Government's belief that meeting climate change targets will not only be good for the environment, but present new opportunities for businesses to improve energy efficiency, cut costs and get ahead of their international competitors by developing cleaner technologies and moving into new markets. It will present new job opportunities for people living and working in the UK, and will offer more choice for the consumer. We want to ensure that the UK makes the most that it possibly can of those opportunities, as well as making a strong and determined contribution to the global fight against climate change. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol is one of the most important steps on that road.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for her courtesy in providing—on this occasion—timely notice of its content.

The Opposition welcome the EU's progress towards ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Whatever the uncertainties about the science of climate change, most of us share an instinctive feeling that we will come to no good by pushing billions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere. One does not have to be a scientist to work that out. Reconciling the material needs of today with the quality of life that we pass on to our children and grandchildren is one of the greatest tasks facing this generation of politicians across the world. We hold the earth in trust, and we must not fail generations to come.

The Secretary of State rightly said that, although welcome, the Kyoto protocol is only an initial step. Is not its significance more symbolic than practical? Is it not an acknowledgement of the challenge that climate change presents rather than a blueprint for meeting it? Given that ratification will involve the Government's taking binding decisions that affect future policy, will she ensure that Parliament can have a full debate on the implications of ratification before taking further irrevocable steps towards binding commitments?

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the treaty will not acquire full legal status until countries that account for 55 per cent. of global emissions have signed up? In the light of the United States' regrettable decision to opt out of the process for the time being, what threat does its absence pose to the project's eventual success? Does she agree that it is essential to make greater efforts to persuade Governments in the developing world that signing up to Kyoto is in the interests of their people and their future? A better global environment will mean a more secure world.

None of that will happen without a cost. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the possible cost to the United Kingdom economy of complying with the provisions of the protocol? Will she guarantee that the Government will not use the emissions trading arrangements to do a deal with a country such as Russia or Ukraine to avoid taking effective domestic action to reduce harmful emissions?

The Kyoto protocol builds on the success of the Rio earth summit in 1992, and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay tribute to the leading role played by John Major in laying the foundations of an international agreement to tackle climate change. I note with some amusement that she paid tribute to the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, but did he not nearly derail the entire process in The Hague in November 2000, causing the French Environment Minister to say—if I recall rightly—that he lost his nerve, lost his cool and was a male chauvinist pig?

Will the Secretary of State also acknowledge that Conservative energy policies of the 1990s have made the most substantial contribution to date to reducing UK greenhouse emissions? Is it not because of those policies that we have met, and even exceeded, early targets for reducing harmful emissions? Looking ahead, however, the picture is less rosy. Has she seen the report issued in January by Cambridge Econometrics that predicts that carbon emissions will fall by only 6.4 per cent. between 1990 and 2010—well short of the 20 per cent. target? Is she aware that, last month, the World Economic Forum branded the UK one of the dirtiest countries in the world?

The Prime Minister is given to delivering pious sermons on the importance of environmental protection to the developing world. Will the right hon. Lady remind him that the 2002 environmental sustainability index ranks the UK 98^th out of 142 countries? Among EU countries, only Belgium fares worse. When it comes to waste and recycling, the UK has just about the worst record on the planet. People who live in greenhouses should not throw stones. The issue of climate change is bigger and more important than domestic party politics, but is it not time that the Government recognised that there is a glaring disparity between their lofty election promises and statements made at international conferences and their performance at home?

Is it not the case that while Switzerland, Germany and Austria have recycling rates of about 50 per cent., we achieve a mere 11 per cent., and that there is no realistic chance of most local authorities meeting the Government's target of 25 per cent. by 2005? Does the right hon. Lady accept that ill-targeted and bureaucratic taxes such as the climate change levy have, predictably, done nothing to reduce carbon emissions while piling costs on manufacturing?

Who are this Government to lecture the world about being green, when as we speak, as a direct result of their incompetence, fridges containing highly damaging chlorofluorocarbons litter pavements, municipal sites, open spaces and fields throughout the country? Why, when the Government talk so enthusiastically about energy conservation, did the Minister for the Environment table wrecking amendments to the Home Energy Conservation Bill and then suffer the humiliation of having them voted down in Committee?

The Secretary of State mentioned combined heat and power. Is she aware that the CHP industry is in crisis, that the Government's strategy is running four years late, that staff are being laid off because orders have dried up and that since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements last April, CHP output has dropped by 60 per cent.?

The Secretary of State referred to the PIU report on energy, which after much delay was produced earlier this year. Is she aware that the energy industry is fed up with dithering and uncertainty, and needs clarity and leadership from the Government? There is a real danger that a great opportunity to put Britain at the forefront of developing new clean renewable technologies will pass us by if the Government continue to sit on their hands, bringing them out only to wring them hopelessly over the future of nuclear power.

The right hon. Lady talked about the launch of the Government's emissions trading scheme due on 1 April. We support that in principle but are concerned by reports that only half the anticipated number of companies have signed up for it. How many companies have now committed themselves to participation? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK scheme is compatible with that being developed by the European Union?

As in so many areas, the Government promised so much on the environment but they have not delivered. Given their performance to date, it is hard to understand why the right hon. Lady's entire statement had a strong flavour of self-congratulation. There is a great deal left to achieve; indeed, the task of delivering a cleaner environment is only just beginning. The Government will be judged not by the protocols and treaties that they sign or by the rhetoric that they use but by what they achieve for us, our children and our grandchildren.

The hon. Gentleman began with what sounded like a high-minded welcome for progress—although, as he rightly said, it is only a start—but he ended up, as he usually does, whingeing on irrelevantly and not altogether pleasantly. Much of what he said was not relevant to the Kyoto protocol. I accept that we ought to seek a debate on the subject. It is not for me to set the agenda for the House, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that if we do have a debate, it will be a debate about the Kyoto protocol and not a general rant about all the things that the hon. Gentleman thought of to throw in, most of which were highly inaccurate. I shall try to pick up on at least some of the issues that he raised.

I am aware of the recent studies by Cambridge Econometrics. There is concern that there has been a slight increase in emissions in the last year, but we remain of the view that in the longer term we are on course to reach the targets that are being set.

Towards the end of his remarks the hon. Gentleman asked about the emissions trading scheme. I am not aware of any suggestion that there is a smaller number of potential companies wishing to participate than we had anticipated. In fact, we are rather encouraged by the number, which was of the order of 40 to 45 when I last checked. Certainly there is no truth in the suggestion that it is half the number that we had anticipated.

As for compatibility with the European Union scheme, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Commission has made some preliminary proposals for a trading scheme. It is different in scope from our own in that it is mandatory, not voluntary. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our scheme was designed in consultation with the private sector precisely to identify what would be most attractive. The Commission's mandatory scheme does not deal with all greenhouse gases, treats energy suppliers differently from our proposals and is not for an economy-wide set of proposals. The Commission's proposals are at the most preliminary stage. It does not even suggest that its scheme would come into force before 2005.

Many other member states have some reservations and prefer some of the features of our scheme, so we have every hope that through constructive discussion we can reach a degree of compatibility. Certainly, we are extremely keen both that the whole European Union has experience in this important field, which has potential advantages for the future, and to ensure that there is enough flexibility in what is ultimately proposed for everyone to be able to participate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. I do not recall ever having seen a monetary figure. It has consistently been suggested that the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol is somewhere between 0.1 and 1 per cent. of gross domestic product anticipated in developed countries over the commitment period, at a time when it is anticipated that growth will be of the order of 25 per cent. There is no suggestion, therefore, that the figure should be particularly difficult to meet.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the agreement was more symbolic than practical. No, there is huge symbolism and huge importance in having got a legally binding agreement with 177 countries participating. We are all sorry that the United States is not one of them. Even without its participation the reductions in emissions will be between 2 and 9 per cent., depending on one's assessment. That is certainly a worthwhile first step, particularly considering that we are talking about a legally binding first step.

The hon. Gentleman was uncharitable—characteristically, I fear—about my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister who, indeed, made a considerable contribution to the agreement. I am happy to accept that the former Member for Huntingdon and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is with us today, made a contribution. It is admirable that Members from all parties have been instrumental in moving the debate and agreement forward.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the developing world. The Kyoto protocol encourages states in the developing world to take their own actions and to report what action they are taking. I share the view that that is necessary and desirable. I am also strongly of the view that there is justice in the argument that many of these problems have originated in the developed world and that it is for us to show that we are taking steps and then to encourage others to join us in doing the same.

May I strongly support my right hon. Friends in their hard and sustained work on addressing these difficult problems? Could something more be said about the Carbon Trust and the recycling of £100 million of climate change levy receipts? Does my right hon. Friend have any sympathy with the view that targets will not be met without Sizewell C, Hunterston C and possibly Hinkley C?

First, the Carbon Trust is doing interesting work with the business community. My hon. Friend may be aware that it believes that increased energy efficiency can make a massive contribution to meeting our targets, even without totally new technological developments of a kind that we cannot yet foresee. Indeed, it believes that we can meet our targets without further substantial change, although we all hope that innovation and new technology will come. There may he a misunderstanding. Although the performance and innovation unit energy review indicated that we should not close our minds to the future use of nuclear power, we do not require the fresh use and development of nuclear power to meet by 2012 the targets to which we signed up in the Kyoto protocol.

I thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is, in association with our European Union partners, an important symbolic step across the world that shows our determination to tackle climate change.

I was also very pleased by the positive way in which the Secretary of State set out her statement, and by her acknowledgment of the work done on both sides of the House over a long period. She seems to accept that Kyoto can only be a first and comparatively small step in a long-term operation to slow down and stop global climate change. Liberal Democrats share that view. Will she agree that behind the words and the bold statement there are some gaps and fudges? I want to press her on some of those points.

The reality is that the United Kingdom's Kyoto targets will be met more or less by accident, or willy-nilly. It was interesting to hear the shadow Secretary of State claim the credit for putting in place the policies that would achieve Kyoto. In fact, those policies were not put in place to achieve Kyoto but for entirely different reasons, and without regard for carbon dioxide emissions at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that setting longer-term targets beyond Kyoto will be the test of United Kingdom policy for the future? Little progress has been made by the Government in setting those longer-term targets.

Later today, the House will be asked to approve the renewables obligation that was debated in Committee yesterday. As the Secretary of State will agree, that obligation is for only 10 per cent. of the energy available to the electricity sector, even in 2027. Therefore, although it sets targets for 2010, it does not advance them beyond that. What targets and policies do the Government have to achieve energy saving and energy conservation? Her statement is short on that, as, I would submit, is Government policy.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is only too well aware that the development of a carbon-free economy provides many opportunities for exports and growth in jobs in the United Kingdom. Will she confirm that those exports and jobs must be based on a strong home market? How will the United Kingdom develop that strong market?

The Secretary of State's report referred to the energy review, and the Minister for the Environment said at Question Time that the Government were neither for nor against nuclear power. When will she give the House a clear commitment to move forward with renewable energy and abandon the nuclear option?

We welcome the Secretary of State's words about engaging the United States in the fight against climate change. Clearly, its participation is vital to the long-term project. Will she assure the House that the Government will remain robust in their dialogue with the United States to try to persuade the world's largest contributor to man-made global climate change to mend its ways?

Finally, I assure the Secretary of State that Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of the Kyoto protocol being brought into effect across the world. We look forward eagerly to the steps beyond Kyoto, and we will encourage the Government to take those steps.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the statement. I accept fully that signing the Kyoto protocol is very much the first step.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were gaps in the scheme and whether it had been met by accident. I note that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), claimed credit for the reductions that resulted from the devastation of the coal mining industry. However, he did not mention the fact that that did not occur cost free. Indeed, Conservative Members have been critical of the Government's handling of the coal industry since 1997. However, it is our estimate that the "dash for gas" will be responsible for only about 30 per cent. of the reductions that we anticipate will take place by 2010. Although that is not an insignificant contribution, it certainly does not mean, in the phrase of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), that we have met our targets by accident. The course of action that the Government have pursued will lead us to meet the targets.

The hon. Gentleman pressed me on setting longer-term targets, but it is a little premature to do that. Certainly, work is beginning on the next Kyoto period and on what are practical and sensible targets for people to aim for in making a contribution to tackling global warming. The targets will have to be assessed against the new information that is becoming available over a steady period from the scientific work on the impact of climate change. It is a little bit of a moving feast in that respect. However, we shall come forward—perhaps in response to the PIU energy review and certainly over time—with further proposals and longer-term targets.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about the renewables obligation and about whether we should set a more demanding target for that. It is important that we have the right balance between setting demanding targets and setting targets that we have practical means of meeting. One of the things that I found most encouraging from my exchange with the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is the degree to which we can meet the targets that we are currently setting without there being a giant expectation of a leap in the dark or of undiscovered science that has not yet been foreseen. It is important that we encourage and support innovation and that we set challenging targets while ensuring that they are not just pie in the sky. We must have practical means of achieving them.

I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend's strong efforts to take forward this important agenda. Kyoto is the key test for those of us who think that an interdependent world requires multilateral engagement.

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the technical and political work that is being done inside her Department on the so-called contraction and conversion approach to global pollution reduction? Many people believe that it is an innovative and equitable approach to tackling global climate change, and I would very much welcome her thoughts on its potential contribution.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is no question but that the contraction and convergence model is a serious proposal. My Department is considering it along with a range of other models. There is a strong case to be made for such a proposal, and it has a certain appealing, simple logic. However, it has serious implications for what is required of different nations so, in that sense, it must be weighed against the wish to get everyone moving in the same direction.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the achievement of a process that has gone on for a long time under both Governments. Both sides of the House should emphasise the commonality of interest in achieving these ends.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that one of the highlights of the process was the agreement, under the previous Government, and its support, under this Government, of the European bubble and the European bubble principle in which those nations most able to do more achieve more so that the least-able nations do not have to reach the targets that would otherwise be set for them? Does that not set an admirable example to the rest of the world and, particularly, in respect of the future incorporation of developing countries? Should we not say that the European Union has proved its worth enormously on this issue as on so many others?

I am happy to pay tribute to the decision to establish the EU "bubble". The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; it was key to agreement within the EU. He is also right to say that the role that the EU played as a united group in the negotiations was absolutely key. There is no question about that.

The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) accused me earlier of self-praise, but this is not self-praise. Other Ministers who participated in the negotiations in Bonn and Marrakesh have said forcefully that the united role that the EU played enabled us to act as broker to agreement, first, politically in Bonn and then to the legal text in Marrakesh. That was crucial.

The right hon. Gentleman has heard me say this on a public platform recently, but I freely say again, as someone who campaigned against our remaining in the European Community as it was in 1975, that the behaviour of the EU as a group in the negotiations has been a model of everything everyone ever hoped for from that agreement.

I add to the congratulations to my right hon. Friend and her colleagues on reaching the accord and on the work that supports it. Given the significant potential job opportunities in renewable technologies, in manufacturing and in rural economies that might result from support of the Kyoto accord, does she not think that, with the benefit of hindsight, the decision of the Conservative party to cut various renewable energy funding streams appears short-sighted? By contrast, will she tell the House what further support she is lobbying the Treasury to provide under the comprehensive spending review for renewable energy technologies?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the implications of some of the mistakes that were made earlier in cutting funding for renewables. He is also right to draw attention to the considerable job and trading opportunities that the agreement creates. Indeed, one of the schemes that the Government are pursuing—the home energy efficiency scheme—was delayed because there were insufficient people with the right skills and training to carry it out. That is another aspect of achieving agreement to practical and deliverable steps.

My hon. Friend is right to say that there are huge opportunities for Britain and for the EU in the agreement. We hope to take advantage of them.

On behalf of the Plaid Cymru-SNP group, I welcome the Government's action in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Although there is cross-party agreement on the issue, may I invite the Secretary of State to condemn certain political parties who mouth pious words in the House about renewables but who oppose all exciting wind farm projects, such as that in my constituency?

On the opportunities provided for renewables in the domestic agenda, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we were to double the target from 10 to 20 per cent.—that is completely feasible—we would produce 80 TWh a year from renewables, which equates very closely to the 88 TWh produced from nuclear power at the moment? Not only do we not need nuclear to meet the present Kyoto protocol, but we do not need it to meet the forthcoming 2050 targets. We can meet them with a combination of renewables and low-carbon technology.

Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us what the Prime Minister did on his recent visit to Australia? Did he discuss these matters with the Australian Prime Minister, because it is important to get Australia, which is a key Asiatic economy, on board as well?

Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did discuss these issues with the Australian Government, as he does assiduously at all his international talks. He is very interested and engaged in that area of policy.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support. I note what he said about what I take to be the Liberal Democrats, and I do of course share the concern of those who say that it is important not only to be in favour of the principle of some of these issues but to be prepared to take and to back some of the practical decisions, even though they are not always easy.

The hon. Gentleman will know, I hope, that the PIU report did recommend that we double our target for renewables to 20 per cent. The Government obviously take that recommendation very seriously. It is one of the issues that we must consider and discuss when we contemplate our response to that report. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that although it is desirable to increase renewables, it is also important, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), that we ensure that the targets that we set are practical and that we believe that we can achieve them, although the hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that we can have a much more substantial contribution from renewables than we have had hitherto.

The Secretary of State will recall that at the Rio summit 10 years ago there was a very clear requirement on all signatory nations to establish local sustainability groups. In this country, many hundreds of such groups have been established and have often worked with great effort and vigour towards sustainable transport plans, a sustainable built environment and sustainable employment practices locally.

What will be done to ensure that the work is better co-ordinated; that those groups are better empowered to have influence on local planning and other decisions, and above all that those people, who are putting enormous effort into this area, feel that their views are being listened to and feel that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is able to take on board many of their suggestions so that, when we reach Rio plus 10, there will be some recognition of the great work that has been done locally? At the end of the day, only local pressure will ensure that sustainable development plans actually bear fruit.

My hon. Friend is correct. As he said, a great deal is happening in local communities, with local community plans and development. Certainly it is part of the focus of my Department, as we work towards the world summit in September, to encourage schoolchildren in particular to become involved in working through plans for their area and focusing on what can be done locally. I share my hon. Friend's view that this is a very important contribution. I am also mindful of the fact that, on some issues where there are difficult choices to be made, such as waste management, it is where local communities have become engaged and have had those discussions that there is the greatest agreement and support for practical proposals to solve those issues. I therefore share his view that such participation is important and we shall continue to try to work with such local groups.

In the answer that the right hon. Lady gave to the important question asked by the Father of the House, she was very careful to limit her answer to periods up to 2012. What will happen to British CO₂ emissions after 2012, assuming that the decommissioned Magnox power stations are not replaced by new nuclear build?

I limited my remarks to the period up to 2012 because that is the Kyoto commitment period, as the hon. Gentleman clearly understands. There is a danger that after 2012, unless we take further action, there will be an increase in emissions, and it is for all of us to consider how best we can tackle that. The PIU report suggested that we should keep open the option of nuclear energy for that reason, but there are others who argue, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did a minute ago, that we can meet that challenge by using renewables or other means. It is an issue that we must all consider and address, but the hon. Gentleman probably knows that at present any new proposals for any development or continuation of nuclear power would have to come from the industry, and at the moment there are no such proposals.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and everyone else responsible for today's immensely important statement. Will my right hon. Friend consider how we can involve individuals in this process? It is the actions of individuals as well as those of Government that will bring about real change with respect to Kyoto. Will she consider how her Department could inform the British public and others about what the Kyoto climate change movement means, and what action they can take as individuals to bring about that worthwhile change? It is my view that as a country, as a world, as a planet, we are sleepwalking to disaster if we cannot bring about very real change in our individual behaviour as well as the behaviour of Governments.

My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point and he will know that the Government already have various programmes in place. Through the Energy Saving Trust, for example, we offer people advice about what they can do personally to increase energy efficiency, which both lowers their costs and is beneficial from the point of view of climate change. My hon. Friend knows that at present a PIU review study is taking place on the handling of waste, and there is little doubt in my mind that when that report is published it will have something to say about how we minimise our creation of waste as well as how we deal with it. My hon. Friend is quite right that, in all these areas, there are actions that individuals as well as communities not only can take but will need to take if we are to tackle these problems. My Department will be taking forward that work and publishing further research in the developing science of the impact of climate change.

May I join others in welcoming the announcement and the Secretary of State's commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change head-on? However, I share the unease of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that the fine rhetoric does not match the Secretary of State's record. Is she aware of the submission that the Sustainable Development Commission—a commission set up by the Prime Minister in October 2000—made last week to the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which stated:

"Looking beyond 2010, the public policy levers which would be needed to ratchet down production of greenhouse gas emissions have not been put into place. The UK's current performance on renewables is poor, and the current target that 10 per cent. of electricity should be supplied by renewables will not be met unless institutional barriers like the new electricity trading arrangements are addressed"?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are discussing how those barriers can be overcome, and that we have said several times that we have every intention of overcoming them. We anticipate publishing the new combined heat and power strategy in the near future. As for the commitment to renewables, a substantial programme of investment is planned, as there is in a range of energy efficiency and other programmes. While none of us would argue that enough is being done, a substantial amount is being done, and rather more than was being done when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was last in power.

In congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I urge her to pay more attention to a neglected form of power that is almost eternally renewable, is British and can offer a huge source of power—the tidal range in the Severn estuary, where there is the highest rise and fall of tide in the world, very near to centres of population? Should we not regard that as a clean, environmentally friendly source of power that can eliminate altogether more development in the unpopular and expensive nuclear industry?

Indeed, I share, as I believe do many in the House, my hon. Friend's concern that we do more to exploit the natural advantages of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend knows that there is a substantial programme of investment in research into such subjects and the Government will continue to support and advance it.

In congratulating the Front-Bench team on getting us to this marvellous announcement today, and especially congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on almost singlehandedly saving the Kyoto process a few years ago, may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay special regard to the potential cost to this nation of now ratifying the treaty? Sometimes treaties of this nature can have a competitive cost to a country, placing it at a disadvantage to those countries that are not prepared to sign up to these proposals. In that regard, will we robustly argue with the United States that it must sign up, and that if it does not, we will robustly defend our competitive position?

First, I rather suspect that one of the things that will ultimately have an effect in the United States is that it will realise that it is missing out on employment and trading opportunities as a result of not being engaged in the process. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are obviously costs and implications, as well as those opportunities, but I am confident that the overall balance is to the United Kingdom's advantage and will continue to be so. I simply remind him of the simple, but evocative phrase that companies saving carbon are companies saving money.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. During the heat of debate, strong feelings are expressed on both sides of the House. I hope that, in my time here, I have always shown proper respect for the occupant of the Chair and observed his or her rulings. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, I was not asked by the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall yesterday to withdraw my remarks when they were made. However, on reflection, I accept that it would have been better if I had not used the phrase that I applied to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), and I am sorry for the offence that was caused.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. In the debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, exchanges became frank to the point of being unacceptable, and I should like to apologise to the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for my part in that. The issues under discussion were of grave urgency and importance, and they mean a very great deal to me. Exchanges on both sides of the argument were decidedly robust. None the less, I should like to say that I am sorry for stepping out of parliamentary order and for my failure to withdraw my remarks when asked to do so by the Deputy Speaker and now to withdraw them.