in the Chair]

With permission, Mr. Speaker, in presenting the Competition Commission's report on the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises, and my response and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, our starting point and guiding objective is our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency, innovation and competitiveness.

This is underpinned by our statement last July that, just as in the last Parliament it was right to make monetary decisions independent of political influence under an independent authority—first de facto and then de jure—so too it is right to make competition decisions—de facto and then de jure—independent of political interference, with Government accepting the decisions of independent competition authorities. Having already moved de facto to such a regime in the way in which we handle merger cases, in the forthcoming enterprise Bill we will legislate to make decisions on mergers and complex monopolies independent.

There are more than 3.5 million small businesses in the United Kingdom, representing 55 per cent. of jobs, 50 per cent. of all business turnover and £1 trillion of economic activity each year. The access to finance and quality of service that they receive from banks are critically important to their productivity and prosperity and that of the British economy. So when the Cruickshank report on banking services found little prospect of effective competition emerging in the small business market, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I referred small business banking to the Competition Commission for a full investigation. Its report is published and laid before the House today.

Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there are three necessary tests, all of which must be met before it can be concluded that a complex monopoly is operating that is harmful to the public interest. The first test is that at least a quarter of the services under consideration must be supplied by a group of persons. The Competition Commission found that the eight largest clearing banks supplied at least a quarter of banking services in the UK, with the four largest providing 86 per cent. of services, and that that degree of concentration had changed little over the past 10 years. The second test is that the group of persons must be found to conduct its affairs

"as in any way to prevent, restrict or distort competition".

The third test is that the restriction or distortion of competition caused by the complex monopoly must be shown to operate against the public interest.

Let me set out the Competition Commission's findings. First, it finds that the banks concerned had failed to compete on price by refusing to pay interest on current accounts and only paying low rates of interest on smaller, short-term deposit accounts; and that they had been maintaining a structure of charges not related to costs.

Secondly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had reduced choice, and the ability of small businesses to make savings on bank charges, by restricting small businesses to business rather than personal bank accounts; failing to inform small businesses about possible benefits from set-off and sweep facilities which allow for credit balances in one account to be set off against debit balances in another; and requiring small businesses wanting a deposit account or a loan also to hold a current account.

Thirdly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had made it hard for small businesses to compare the deals available from different banks by failing to provide small businesses with a breakdown of interest charges on their current account and offering discounts only to selected customers.

Fourthly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had made it more difficult and expensive for new entrants and alternative suppliers to attract small businesses by confining free banking to business start-ups and to small businesses that had moved from another bank, and negotiating reduced charges for small businesses that were likely to switch banks.

The Competition Commission concludes that all eight of the largest clearing banks in the UK were found to be carrying out one or more of those practices, which operated against the public interest. Moreover, it finds that

"the average return on equity between 1998 and 2000 is 36 per cent. Compared with an estimated cost of equity of about 15 per cent. We however, recognise that a number of adjustments should be made to these figures."

It continues:

"despite the cautious approach we have adopted to a number of those factors, we have concluded that the four largest clearing groups … are together charging excessive prices … and therefore making excessive profits in England and Wales of about £725 million a year over the last three years with adverse effects on SMEs."

Profits are absolutely central to the effective and efficient working of a market economy. They are the engine in the dynamic process of competition, innovation and meeting the needs of consumers. Where high profits are due to relative efficiency rather than monopoly—as the Competition Commission found in the case of Northern bank—the question of whether high profits are against the public interest does not arise.

Where high profits are derived from an absence of competition or through a complex monopoly situation, and are earned by overcharging customers, the effectiveness of the market is reduced. Indeed, as the Competition Commission observed, where the consumers concerned—in this case small and medium-sized companies—are themselves operating in a highly competitive market, the adverse effects on the public interest are exacerbated.

Because practices carried out by the eight main clearing banks—and the overcharging by the four largest in England and Wales—were found by the Competition Commission to operate against the public interest, it recommends that all eight clearing banks identified make a number of changes to their practices to help promote competition in this market, including being required to facilitate the switching of accounts; providing—if requested—a portable credit history; making the charges for their services more transparent; investigating the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches; and extending the business banking code.

Taken together, the Competition Commission states that those remedies, along with others that it proposes, would help to promote greater competition in banking services.

The Competition Commission also wants

"a decisive and significant shift towards what"

the commission

"consider to be competitive levels",

and it states:

"competition and entry has to date not been effective in reducing excess profits and prices, nor is the immediate prospect of new entry in"

the commission's

"view sufficient to reduce excess profits and prices in a reasonable time period."

It recommends a further transitional remedy requiring the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales, where evidence of excessive charges was found, to offer all small businesses one of three possible options: a current account that pays interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent; or a current account free of money transmission charges; or a choice between the two.

The Competition Commission concludes that since certain current banking practices have operated against the public interest, and led to small businesses paying more than they should for services, it would be wrong to let the situation continue for several more years until the behavioural remedies to promote competition took effect.

From our starting point—our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I considered the Competition Commission's report carefully. We examined the recommendations and remedies proposed to promote competition, to encourage new banking suppliers to enter the market and directly to address the lack of choice and information. Until the competition authorities are fully independent, the Government have legal responsibility for decisions on complex monopoly cases. In preparing the Government's response. We sought and received additional advice on the report's technical analysis and recommendations from independent experts.

The advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, which is published today, agrees with the Competition Commission that the limited extent and difficulty of switching bank accounts is a key factor in inhibiting competition in the small business banking market. In his advice, which I am also publishing today, Sir Bryan Carsberg, the former chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board and former Director General of Fair Trading, concluded that

"the framework adopted by the Commission is sound and would be accepted as appropriate by most independent experts".

Like the Competition Commission, we recognise that for banks to be robust and play their key role in the economy, it is necessary and desirable, at certain points in the economic cycle, for them to make higher than average profits. However, although we are pro-profit, we are also pro-competition, and we cannot be on the side of any monopoly or other behaviour that unfairly restricts competition in markets.

The Competition Commission explicitly concludes that practices by banks operate against the public interest. Having carefully considered its report, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I agree that action must be taken to promote greater competition.

First, the Competition Commission recommends that banks be required to facilitate the switching of accounts to enable small businesses to move accounts from one bank to another easily and quickly by completing a substantial percentage of all account switching within five working days, by publishing their performance objectives and efficiency in achieving them, and by imposing no charges for closing accounts. We agree with the commission's recommendation.

Secondly, the commission recommends that banks be required, if requested by a small business, to provide a portable credit history—a statement of the business's credit performance that can be passed to other banks arid which will improve the prospects for smaller competitors and new entrants into the banking sector. We agree with the commission's recommendation.

Thirdly, the commission recommends that banks be required to stop bundling services and imposing requirements on small businesses to hold a current account in order to obtain a loan or deposit account. We agree with the commission's recommendation.

Fourthly, the commission recommends that banks be required to make their service charges more transparent by routinely publishing their standard tariff prices for money transmission services and for interest paid on current and short-term deposit accounts, allowing small businesses easily to compare charges. We agree with the commission's recommendation.

Fifthly, because lack of access to a bank branch represents a key barrier to many substantial new competitors entering the market, the commission recommends that banks be required to investigate the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches, and to publish their findings within a year. We agree with the commission's recommendation.

The Julius report concluded that the principles underlying the voluntary code for banking and mortgages for households should be extended to small businesses. Consequently, the Competition Commission made several other informal suggestions, some of which are incorporated in the new code announced by the British Bankers Association last week, which we welcome. The Competition Commission recommends that other suggestions, such as banks improving their procedures for dealing with errors and paying compensation, should be added to the code.

Those and other remedies proposed by the Competition Commission are in pursuit of competition and we ask the banks to work with the Director General of Fair Trading to implement the recommendations speedily.

In seeking an earlier and decisive switch towards a better service for small businesses, the Competition Commission considered more radical proposals—for example, divestment of bank branches and small and medium-sized enterprise banking businesses, whereby banks would be forced to give over some of their branches or customers to other banks. It also considered a licence fee, an obligatory fund and a windfall tax. The Competition Commission rejected those proposals, and we agree with that rejection.

The Competition Commission recommends a transitional remedy that would not prevent companies from earning high profits but would simply ensure that they could do so only as a result of a genuine competitive advantage—a remedy that

"imposes no restriction on new entrants … and should not interfere with the natural emergence of desirable competition".

Thus the commission recommends, and we agree, as a transitional measure, that the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales be required to offer any small and medium-sized enterprise either a current account paying interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent, or a current account free of money transmission charges, or a choice between the two. The Director General of Fair Trading recommends, and we agree, that we ask him to obtain undertakings from the banks to implement that remedy.

The commission suggests that all remedies be put in place within six months. We hope that the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to reach an earlier agreement on the transitional remedy. The commission also recommends that the Director General of Fair Trading review all the remedies three years after their implementation. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there is flexibility for a review to take place sooner. We state our view that if at any time within the three years the Office of Fair Trading observes more effective competition emerging, or banks have proposals that they believe would make for a more competitive environment, an early review could and should take place.

Our goal is to create an environment where new entrants can compete with existing banks on a fair basis and both can secure more competitive services for small businesses. I urge the banks to work with the Director General of Fair Trading to achieve what is in everybody's interest: a better service and a fairer deal for Britain's 3.5 million small businesses.

I thank the Chancellor for affording me some advance notice of the statement and the large report that he has published today. However, may I also register my protest at the fact that this statement did not appear on the annunciator until seven minutes past 12, giving hon. Members only 23 minutes' notice that the Chancellor intended to make a statement today, whereas this morning's newspapers and news broadcasts were full of speculation that he may well make such a statement. The other statement that is to be made today was announced on the annunciator at 11 o'clock this morning.

There was absolutely no reason why this statement should not have appeared on the annunciator at the same time. It is typical of the contempt that the Chancellor shows for the House every time he comes before it. I hope he will not suggest that there is any question of market sensitivity, because, as I said the newspapers and news broadcasts this morning were full of speculation that such a statement might be made and, anyway, I would expect the Chancellor to know by now that the markets can do in 23 minutes what they can do in an hour and a half.

Can the Chancellor confirm that the Government received the report of the Competition Commission five months ago? Can he explain to the House the reasons for the delay in publishing it? Was that delay entirely due to the widely reported in-fighting between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, or were there other factors and, if so, what were they? Would it not have been very much better had the Government published the commission's report when they received it, so that there could have been consultation on its recommendations before the Government made their decision?

On the substance of the statement, of course I entirely agree with the Chancellor that the best protection that can be given to the consumer, including the consumer of banking services, is competition. Is it not the case that since the commission began its inquiry, there has been a welcome and not insignificant enhancement of competition in this sector, with the entry of HBOS, Abbey National and the National Australia group into this sector of the market? Can he clarify whether the recommendations made by the commission, which he has accepted, will apply to all the banks in this sector, including new entrants, or only to the biggest four banks, which, as he said, cover 86 per cent. of the market?

More widely, would not the greatest contribution that the Chancellor could make to enhance competition in the provision of banking services be to work for the relaxation of the provisions of the UCITS directive, which inhibit the development of money market funds in this country, along the lines of the measures that have been so successful in the United States?

I accept, nevertheless, that when competition is not working effectively, it is right that action should be taken to improve it. I, too, would accept most of the recommendations of the Competition Commission. There are some that require further consideration than can be given in half an hour, and we shall give them that consideration. For the most part, however—although not in every respect—it would appear that the Competition Commission has arrived at some sensible proposals, and the Chancellor is right to accept them.

Will the Chancellor tell us a little more about some of the recommendations? For example, he says that he accepts the commission's recommendation that banks be required to investigate

"the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches"

and to publish their findings within a year. What action does he have in mind for banks that are either unable or unwilling to conduct such a feasibility study?

Does not the Chancellor recognise, as he stands here today posing as the champion of small business, that he and his Government have done enormous damage to the small business sector in this country by the piles of regulation that they have imposed on small business—4,642 last year alone: one for every 25 minutes of every working day in the year? Is that not the main factor that is impairing the ability of small business to prosper? Is not the Chancellor failing completely to take any action to remedy it?

If the shadow Chancellor supports us on the competition measures that we are putting forward today, he should have been able to tell us that he supported the switching of accounts, the portable credit histories, the changes in the British banking code and the transitional remedies. He noticeably refused to do so. If he is not prepared to support those measures, he will find himself at odds not only with the small business organisations of this country—including the Federation of Small Businesses—but with the Competition Commission.

It was the Conservative party that said, in 2001:

"Competitions decisions are best left to independent regulators and the competition authorities."

The Competition Commission recommends all these measures. The shadow Chancellor should, therefore, be saying that he will back up the competition authorities, but he has not been prepared to do that. We have suggested a number of remedies, particularly the transitional remedies, on which he has been absolutely silent.

On the question of the publication of the competition report, it was received in October. We then put it to the Director General of Fair Trading for advice, and also asked Sir Bryan Carsberg to work on it. We have considered all the recommendations in detail. There have never been so many recommendations in one report on banking as there are in this report, and we have considered them all carefully. I think that the House would prefer that we proceeded in that way on this matter.

Equally, as for a statement to the House on this matter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was the Minister responsible for the City and financial services in the 1980s. No monopolies and mergers statement was brought before the House. We are bringing a statement before the House in a way that has never been done before. I also have to tell the shadow Chancellor, who is a barrister, that we have had to satisfy all the legal technicalities involved in the publication of the report, which also goes to the Stock Exchange—[Interruption.]—none of it has appeared in the press—and which also has to go to the banks themselves.

There now follows a period during which the banks will be approached by the Director General of Fair Trading on the basis of the undertakings relating both to the transitional and to the other remedies. He will then report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to me.

The shadow Chancellor asked about the changes that had taken place, with a number of companies announcing that they wanted to enter the market for small business. That, as he will discover, is dealt with in both the Competition Commission's report and in what we have received from the Director General of Fair Trading. The report says

"We do not believe that"

behavioural remedies

"will have sufficient impact on competition within the next two to three years to ensure that the incidence of excessive prices for banking services … of the four largest clearing groups in England and Wales … would disappear in a reasonable period of time."

That is exactly why the Competition Commission has proposed the transitional remedies on which the shadow Chancellor—because he has not faced up to these questions—is silent this morning.

The report says that

"lack of competition has permitted and would continue to permit overcharging of SMEs for these services."

The Competition Commission does not believe that, even given additional new entrants into the market, behavioural remedies—entry and more competition—will of themselves have sufficient effect on services to small businesses over the next two or three years. That is why the Director General of Fair Trading has recommended the transitional remedies.

I hope that, just as after a time consensus was reached on the independence of the Bank of England and acceptance of its interest rate decisions, consensus can now be reached on the independent competition authorities. I hope that after some reflection the Conservative party will agree not only that competition is right in general, but that the specific remedies that have been recommended are necessary if we are to do our best by the 3.5 million small businesses in this country.

The Select Committee on the Treasury will welcome the report. In the next month or so, we shall be inviting the banks to gibe evidence on what they have done since the Cruickshank report.

Is it not the case, however, that too many small businesses are still being charged as much as 250 to 300 times more than is justifiable? Is it not the case that not enough small-scale risk capital is available, and very little venture capital? Those problems must be tackled if we are to achieve our twin aims of more jobs and more productivity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks will have to go on playing their part and come to terms with their wider role, responsibility and duties to the communities from which they derive their funds?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and welcome the work that his Select Committee is doing on banking.

The banks—I pay tribute to them—are working with us on the creation of venture capital funds in the regions and the high-unemployment communities. Britain is now more advanced than other countries in terms of its development of its venture capital industry in the regions, and I hope that the banks will continue to work with us to solve the problem of the venture capital funding gap in some high-unemployment areas.

Let me refer to some of the general measures. As I have said, there are 3.5 million small businesses in the country. It is estimated that they were overcharged by some £725 million in 1998–2000, although that depends on the interest rate that was prevalent at the time. Both the transitional and the long-term remedies take account of the problem. I hope that the banks will work with us to find a solution to what most Members on both sides of the House would agree has been a perennial difficulty for small businesses in all our constituencies, some of which contain 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 of them—many very small indeed. We are in a position to make progress, and I hope there will be consensus on the report's findings.

I welcome the Chancellor's statement, and the Government's commitment to prompt and full implementation of the report's recommendations.

Does the Chancellor agree that the report fully vindicates the findings of the Cruickshank report, published two years ago, despite their rubbishing by the banks themselves? Does he agree with the central conclusion of that report that there are profound competition problems in this sector as a result of complex monopoly, the leading clearers' control of the central clearing system and, indeed, the banks' continued enjoyment of regulatory privileges—for instance, the fact that the Government are their lender of last resort? Does the Chancellor accept that basic analysis?

Does the Chancellor also accept that his cautious approach—it has taken two years, since the publication of the Cruickshank report, to reach the conclusions— has meant that the small business sector had roughly £1.5 billion of excess profits taken out of it by the banking system? That has swamped the positive incentives that he put hack into small business, such as £200 million for the small business research and development tax credit. As the Office of Fair Trading report rejects the idea of a levy on banks, what measures does he propose in order to retrieve some of the £1.5 billion excess profit of the past two years and to put it back into small business?

The Cruickshank analysis has been vindicated. It suggested that there was up to £5 billion of excess profits altogether, much of it taken from personal consumers as well as small business. In light of that, when do the Government propose to implement their long-promised recommendations to introduce Paycom, a payments regulator? Ministers have told me in response to written and oral questions and Adjournment debates for more than two years that that is imminent, but it has yet to materialise.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a long-standing interest in such matters. I am also grateful to him for dealing with the specifics, unlike the shadow Chancellor.

First, Ms DeAnne Julius's work on the banking code is moving ahead as a result of the Cruickshank report. Secondly, we are committed to opening up the money transmission services. That is Government policy. Thirdly, however, we reject a windfall tax, as does the Competition Commission. The previous Conservative Government imposed the only windfall tax on banks, and that was for the same reason—to deal with the failure of banks to pay interest on current accounts at a time of high interest rates in the early 1980s.

We believe that because the injury is to small businesses themselves, the best thing is to reduce costs for small businesses. That is why the option for the transitional period is either to pay a rate of interest on current accounts or to provide free banking services for the money transmission services that are involved. Both of those could be worth substantial amounts of money to a small business if properly implemented, and it is now for the Director General of Fair Trading to work on that.

Our proposals are directed at the problem, which is that small businesses must get a better deal. As I said, I hope that we can make progress quickly on the recommendations. Although the Competition Commission says that there are six months in which the undertakings can be discussed, we hope—and I believe—that the Director General of Fair Trading also hopes that we can move forward sooner.

As for incentives for small business, the hon. Gentleman will have noted my statements in the past few weeks in which I have made it clear that we are determined to do more to help small businesses to amass the funds to invest and to be able to seek equity, to start exporting and to hire new employees. That is our aim, and it will be advanced by measures in the Budget.

The 5,000 small businesses in my constituency will welcome the Chancellor's statement. The commission's report is a serious document. It basically finds the banks guilty of monopoly exploitation. In view of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks should respond quickly to the findings? They should at least do something about charges and current account terms in less than the six months envisaged by the report. That would make a start on repaying more than £700 million-worth of overcharges.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee. I hope that its work on this matter will yield results.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we should make progress as quickly as possible. All hon. Members know that we are dealing with a long-standing grievance and, indeed, a long-standing problem; the evidence is that action should be taken. However, I stress to him and the 5,000 businesses operating in his constituency that will benefit from the measures announced today that a healthy and profitable banking sector is in everyone's interests. There will be periods in the economic cycle in which banks should and will have to earn above average profits. Where those arise from the absence of competition, we should act. Therefore, I hope that all the recommendations that are central to the improvement of competition can be followed through.

On the transitional remedy, my hon. Friend will note that the Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce said only a few days ago:

"To stop this overcharging, we would advocate that the Secretary of State must cap the charges of the big four banks until the competition is more secure."

Our remedy is more flexible than that, but it is clear that many of the business organisations are demanding action, and demanding action now. We can be both pro profit for banks and pro competition.

In making such major changes, will the Chancellor bear in mind the danger of undermining one of our most successful institutions, which has high standards that are greatly appreciated by people all over the world? Does he accept that, with regard to small businesses, the banks have to carry a massive burden of bad debts and failed businesses, and that it is only fair to take that into account? What are the figures?

On competition, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Clydesdale bank in Scotland—happily owned by Australians—pays interest on its current accounts to people like me? Is it not unfair to undermine the banks by talking only about the costs and not the massive burdens? Will he give a figure on the banks' bad debts and failed businesses?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken an interest in these matters at a British and European level for some time. He seems to have a more intimate knowledge of the banking system than the shadow Chancellor.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the assessment of the methodology that was used by the Competition Commission, and what allowance has been made for the large amount of bad debts that have to be written off by the banks. The Competition Commission also took into account in its methodology the effects of the economic cycle in which, at certain points, higher than average profits can be expected to be earned. There is also the issue of the allowance made for intangible assets by the methodology adopted by the Competition Commission.

We have considered these matters carefully, as has the Competition Commission. It is because the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman are rightly raised by members of the public and the banks that we asked Sir Bryan Carsberg, a renowned international expert on these issues, to look at the methodology. The notation with the documentation that the House has shows that he has expressed his confidence in the general approach taken. I believe that people will reach exactly the conclusion that we reached when they look at the figures that are available.

On the general point about banks, of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Britain wants and should be proud of a healthy, profitable banking sector, but it cannot be at the expense of little competition or a complex monopoly. When that is the case, it is our duty to take action. The hon. Gentleman speaks from the Back Benches and has done for these past 20 years; I think that he will agree that it is sad that when this problem was put to Conservative Ministers in the 1990s, they did nothing about it.

For 10 years during that period, and before I entered this House, I ran a business in the City and suffered exactly the sort of banking disservice that was provided to small and medium-sized enterprises such as mine. I welcome this report with the enthusiasm of somebody who suffered under those practices for so long.

My right hon. Friend referred to radical measures which have been discussed and considered in the report. In particular, I would have urged him to pursue the windfall tax, but I take the reasons and the rationale behind his decision not to pursue that course and go out of line with the regulator's suggestions. However, if there is any dilatoriness on the part of the banks in implementing the recommendations, sorting out their service to the public and repaying the extra profits that they have made through an improvement of service, I urge my right hon. Friend to hold that option up his sleeve.

Bravissimo!

The hon. Gentleman should not be so unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who at least has views on the matter that he is prepared to express, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who had nothing to add to the debate.

My hon. Friend is right to say that action is needed now. That is why the proposals have been put forward under such a time scale. It is also the case that the new banking code proposals—I applaud the banks—were made in the past few days. Many of the proposals are a welcome advance on the previous position, and I welcome the specific recommendations in them. The Competition Commission believes that there should be further reforms of the banking code and has made informal suggestions about compensation and other matters where it feels there are errors that should be taken into account. Equally, we can move forward quite quickly with the other recommendations.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the case for a windfall tax, as I have explained. Perhaps the Conservative party will be the only party to propose that, as it imposed a windfall tax on the banks in the early 1980s. It is important to say that we are both pro profit—we need the banks to be profitable—and pro competition.

Does the Chancellor accept that the statement that he began reading at 12.30 pm was one of the longest that he has made since he took office other than on Budget day? Does he accept that that means that it must have been a considerable time in the drafting? Does he also accept that he has given a totally inadequate response to the shadow Chancellor on his discourtesy in notifying the House at only seven minutes past 12 that such a statement would take place? Will he give an undertaking not to show such discourtesy to the House in the future? Finally, does he recognise that that was not only a discourtesy to the House and to the Opposition, but that it particularly upset his friends in the Liberal Democrats, whose Treasury spokesman was not even here to hear his statement?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a point about the Liberal Democrats by a very circuitous route. The fact of the matter is that this Government are bringing the Competition Commission report to the House with a statement, which he should applaud. We are also the Government who are publishing all the documents: the report of the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg's report and today's report. We are doing so in a way that does not offend the normal procedures that must legally be pursued for Competition Commission reports. I would hope that the shadow Chancellor, as a lawyer, would begin to understand that.

All these points about procedure from Conservative Members are designed to obscure the most important fact to come out of this discussion—that they cannot even tell us at this point whether they support the major remedies that are proposed.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Could he clarify what action is proposed to reimburse small businesses? I am sure that he knows that although most businesses are overcharged, they do not receive 100 per cent. reimbursement. Will he say a little more about that?

We are proposing action for now and for the future; we are not proposing retrospective action and neither was the Competition Commission report. We have said that competition decisions should be independent of political interference. I hope that, in the light of what the Conservative party said at the election and what the Liberal Democrat party has said consistently, there can he all-party consensus that these decisions are best made by independent authorities under rules established by the House in legislation. While we prepare to legislate for that, we have the legal responsibility to announce and make those decisions.

We have done everything in our power. We appointed Sir Bryan Carsberg and consulted the director general, arid my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have studied in detail all the recommendations. It is right to go ahead now to implement those recommendations, which have been put forward by the Competition Commission, supported by the Director General of Fair Trading—the methodology having been assessed by Sir Bryan Carsberg. I hope that there can be consensus on that.

I welcome the Chancellor's strong commitment to competition and the remedies that will improve the service to small businesses. I wish that his belief in competition would extend to the currencies that they might bank in so that they could continue to have the choice of the pound or the euro. Is he at all worried that if the banks plan sharing branches at the same time as their revenues are cut, their response will be another big round of branch closures? What will he do to stop that getting out of hand and damaging the service, which we would not want?

I see no need for that to happen, but it is precisely so that the details can be studied that the Competition Commission has recommended—we support that recommendation—that the banks should prepare a report for the Director General of Fair Trading. I appreciate that that is one concern that will he expressed. We believe that it is a soluble problem. The right way to proceed is for the banks and the director general to consider those detailed undertakings and for the work to be done on that. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman supports not only the independence of the Competition Commission but its recommendations in general.

indicated assent.

The recommendations are detailed and it is good that we have the right hon. Gentleman's support. I hope that we can now have the support of the shadow Chancellor.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because a successful small firms sector is essential as the seedbed of future growth, the banks, by gaining excess profits—in effect, by ripping off small companies—have damaged the enterprise culture? Notwithstanding his earlier remarks, does he think that, in those circumstances, a withholding or a windfall tax might have been used to provide the venture capital and the higher risk financing that those small firms so desperately need?

I know that my hon. Friend was formerly a business adviser. I also know that during the next few days strong feelings on these matters will be expressed in every phone-in programme and letters column because people feel strongly about the costs of banking services and about the failure in many cases to pay interest on current accounts.

However, we have a balanced set of recommendations that point our way in both the present and the future. I am in favour neither of the withholding tax in Europe nor of the windfall tax that has been examined by the Competition Commission. The commission examined and rejected the tax—as we are right to do—but I hope that we can move ahead with agreement on all the other measures that offer the prospect of opening up competition in the small business market while giving small businesses an immediate remedy as we wait for that competition to take effect.

Neither the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru nor any of the Ulster parties received an advance copy of the Chancellor's statement. Surely it is unacceptable that some parties received an advance copy while others did not.

That said, on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, I welcome the recommendations as a step forward. We are especially interested in the Chancellor's remarks about a national network of sharing branches. Does he realise that, due to branch-network closure programmes over the past few years, there are no bank branches at all in many rural and some inner-city areas? When he discusses those matters with the banks, will he consider proposals for extending banking to those areas to encourage small businesses to set up and continue there? When there are no bank branches, it is difficult for such businesses to continue to operate—especially those that are cash-intensive.

It is precisely for those reasons that there is work to make the network available to new entrants. It is also for those reasons that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has responsibility for small business, has taken a great interest in bank branches in rural areas. The Post Office also has a role.

I ask the House to bear in mind not only that, historically, statements about the Competition Commission, or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, have not been made in the House—that was the practice followed by the previous Government—but that the shadow Chancellor asked me a question. I wrote to him this morning, stating that:

"The reports contain information about particular businesses"—

individual companies—

"which until the report is published is confidential under section 133 of the Fair Trading Act and onward disclosure is prohibited under this section."

I have to take account of the legal requirements on me when I make information available before a statement. The previous Conservative Government never made statements on such matters; they must have had a good reason at the time.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement because—as perhaps he can confirm—many thousands of businesses in my constituency might be being overcharged by between £250 and £300 a year for banking services. Although Members on both sides of the House—but not the shadow Chancellor—support the proposals, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Labour Government who are listening to the needs of small businesses through the operation of the Small Business Council and other bodies? It is this Government who are standing up for the interests of small businesses and taking action to promote enterprise and competition. It is this Government who are succeeding for small businesses where the previous Government failed.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are more small businesses in this country, and the measures that we are adopting are designed to encourage even more. He is also right to say that, if the overcharging from 1998 to 2000 is in the order of £725 million a year—of course that depends on the interest rates in operation at any particular time—many small businesses are paying a high tariff for their banking services, which could be removed with this remedy, or they are not receiving interest on their current accounts, which the banks can now consider. The flexibility of our remedies allows banks to make a choice between those two.

I believe that the Liberal and nationalist parties are prepared to support our measures. It is unfortunate that, although the putative shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has expressed support for them, the shadow Chancellor himself has still not said what he thinks.

rose—

Order. I want to give everyone who wants to the opportunity to speak, but I ask hon. Members to be brief and ask one question, and one question only.

The Chancellor gave the costs of overcharging as £725 million. What is his estimate of the total cost to business of additional Government regulation imposed in the past two Parliaments? Are those who say that it is £5 billion right?

The Minister of State at the Cabinet Office announced only a few days ago the scrapping of a whole series of regulations that had been introduced by the Conservative Government and other previous Governments. We are working with the small business community in our regulatory taskforce to remove regulation. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we cut the rate of small business tax from 23p to 20p—to the lowest rate in our history—and that we introduced a 10p starting rate for small businesses on profits up to £10,000, and a rate between 10p and 20p on profits from £10,000 to £50,000. He should also remember that, despite all the talk from the Conservative party, it was the Labour Government who cut capital gains tax.

Small businesses in my constituency will see the publication of the report and the Chancellor's actions as vindication of their deep-seated concerns over many years about excessive profit-taking by the largest four banks. Is there any hope of his predecessors as Chancellor heading to Palace Green to apologise for failing to take the action that he has taken?

That is a matter for previous Chancellors. My hon. Friend is right to say that it was time to take action. It is regrettable that at the time when small businesses were complaining most, especially in the early 1990s, so little was done to help them. It is possible to build a consensus around developing the enterprise culture, and I would have thought that all parties would now be prepared to join it. My remarks are directed to the shadow Chancellor, and I seek his views on our proposals.

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, I welcome the statement, but as with all such matters, the devil is in the detail. It is unfortunate that the Chancellor had cloth ears when my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking.

It is a great disappointment to me personally, and no doubt to others who are listening to our debate, that the Chancellor did not say anything about funds deposited by ZANU-PF, Mugabe and others in this country, which could have been seized, and—

Order. There is no need for the Chancellor to answer that question.

When does the Chancellor believe that the cartel of the money transmission service or central clearing will finally he ended?

We will announce detailed proposals on that matter in due course.

Has the Chancellor concluded that there is clear evidence of monopolistic practice in the personal banking market, and if so, what is the timetable for taking action?

That is not the subject of the statement, which is about small business banking. We referred the matter to the Competition Commission, which has produced a report that is now before the House. Along with the commission, we are proposing to take action. As for the personal banking sector, that is not the subject of the review.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe.

Yesterday, Robert Mugabe was declared the official winner in the presidential election. That result should, however, surprise no one. ZANU-PF had long been bent on achieving precisely that outcome by any means and at all costs. The Zimbabwean Government have subjected their electorate to two years of violence and intimidation. They have harassed Opposition candidates and supporters, manipulated the voters' rolls and restricted access to polling stations. They have exploited every instrument of the state—the military, the police, media, youth militias and the bureaucracy—to distort the outcome of the election.

ZANU-PF did its utmost to conceal the extent of its violence and malpractice from the eyes of the world. It excluded European Union election observers, monopolised domestic television and radio, and restricted international media organisations, including the BBC. None of those actions were the actions of a party confident of its ability to win a free or fair election. The elections can be judged only by agreed international standards, not least the declaration signed by Commonwealth Heads of Government, chaired by President Mugabe, in Harare in 1991.

Only three months before the election, in December last year, on the basis of the principles of the Harare declaration, the Commonwealth concluded that

"the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law".

That conclusion was reinforced in January, and again a week before the polls closed. The situation got worse during the election.

A key yardstick by which any electoral process must be judged is impartial electoral administration, but there was nothing impartial about the process in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe staffed Zimbabwe's electoral supervisory commission with partisan army officers. The names of who could and could not vote were not settled until just days before the election, amidst allegations of fraudulent practice. During the election itself, the electoral commission reduced the number of polling booths in urban areas to restrict the Opposition vote. In many rural areas, the Opposition say that their polling agents and monitors were prevented from inspecting ballot boxes before voting started. Others were not allowed inside polling stations. Many Opposition workers say they were abducted, detained or arrested by supporters of the ruling party or the security forces.

As the House will know, while European Union and other observers were excluded from observing the electoral process, some groups of election observers were allowed into the country. Earlier today, I received the preliminary report of the Commonwealth observers group, which comes to a number of coruscating conclusions about the conduction of the election. It said:

"The violence and intimidation created a climate of fear and suspicion."

It said that the police

"appeared to be high-handed in dealing with the MDC and lenient towards supporters of … ZANU-PF. This failure to impartially enforce the law seriously calls into question the application of the rule of law in Zimbabwe."

It said:

"We were concerned that the legislative framework within which the elections were conducted … was basically flawed."

It went on:

"Limitations on the freedom of speech movement and…association prevented the opposition from campaigning freely."

It continued:

"We … found that thousands of Zimbabwean citizens were disenfranchised".

It concluded:

"All the foregoing brings us to the conclusion that the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors."

That set of conclusions has been confirmed in a report by parliamentary observers from the Southern African Development Community. It makes similar, very serious criticisms of the process, and concludes that

"the electoral process could not be said to adequately comply with the Norms and Standards for Elections in the SADC region."

I shall place both reports in the House of Commons Library.

Zimbabweans have plainly been denied their fundamental right to choose by whom they are governed. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my admiration for the people of Zimbabwe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—whose faith in democracy was so strong that they queued for days to vote, in the face of police violence. In some cases, they were denied the right to vote. They are the true democrats, but they deserve a great deal better.

What adds to the tragedy is that, until recently, Zimbabwe was the pride of Africa—the bread basket of the continent. Robert Mugabe's disastrous economic polices have severely damaged his own country. Unemployment is running at 70 per cent. and inflation at 112 per cent. Last year, its gross domestic product declined by 10 per cent., and the same decline is expected this year. In the space of two years, Robert Mugabe's prime achievement will have been to contract Zimbabwe's economy by at least a quarter.

The failure of the electoral process in Zimbabwe is a tragedy not just for Zimbabwe, but for the people of southern Africa as a whole. The rand of the Republic of South Africa depreciated by 40 per cent. in the past year. The people of southern Africa deserve better, too. Their Governments will inevitably bear most of the responsibility in helping the region to recover, and we shall of course continue to work with them in that task.

The House will know that, on 18 February. the European Union decided to impose sanctions, which were targeted against the leadership of ZANU-PF. They included a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will travel to Barcelona this afternoon, and at the summit to be held in that city we will review the position with our EU partners.

We are also working closely with the United States Government. They have already announced a travel ban on the ZANU-PF leadership and are considering a possible broadening of sanctions, along the lines of those already enforced by the EU. We will continue to work closely with them, and with our G8 and SADC partners.

The House will know that, at the turn of the year, Her Majesty's Government took the view, on evidence available then, that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. Events since then have simply confirmed that judgment. Regrettably, Commonwealth Heads of Government decided not to follow that course, but to appoint instead a troika of South Africa, Nigeria and Australia to decide on Zimbabwe's Commonwealth status. We await its conclusions in the light of the strongly worded Commonwealth? observers group report, to which I have already drawn the House's attention, and the more detailed report that the observers group promises.

In the face of the deprivation heaped on them by their own Government, it is crucial that we and the international community stand by the people of Zimbabwe. We will therefore maintain our programme of humanitarian assistance, and our assistance in the fight against HIV-AIDS. However, I tell the House that we will continue to oppose any accessing by the Government of Zimbabwe of international financial resources until a more representative Government are in place.

Robert Mugabe may claim to have won this election, but the people of Zimbabwe have lost. We are faced with a leader who is determined to ignore the international community, to ignore his people and to ignore the grave consequences of his actions. Change will have to come to Zimbabwe. One day—I hope soon—we can look forward to a democratic Government of Zimbabwe, acting in the interests of all their peoples, and taking their rightful place in a modern Africa.

Some have sought to suggest that this is a conflict between Africa and the west, black against white and south against north. I reject that totally. At its heart, this is a matter of the universal worldwide principle of the right of people, wherever they live, freely to determine their own future. That principle has been flouted in Zimbabwe, and all democrats should speak with one voice in condemning what has taken place.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement today on Mr. Mugabe's election result and for letting me see a copy in advance.

I refer to Mr. Mugabe's election result rather than his victory, because the word "victory" has glamorous connotations. Yesterday's result in Zimbabwe contained nothing glamorous at all. It was sordid, dishonest, underhand, undemocratic and wrong. It should not be allowed to stand. President Bush is right to have made it clear that he will not recognise the result, and we should do the same. For all the Foreign Secretary's fine words, I am disappointed that nothing in what he said suggested that that would be the case.

We must avoid the temptation of a emotional reaction. We need to look dispassionately at the evidence of what has happened and to be able to demonstrate that the election was not only flawed, but rigged well in advance of polling and neither free nor fair. It has not been free for months. The long run-up to the elections has been marked by violence, intimidation and the use of terror as a political weapon. The House should not forget that in the 12 months to January this year we had already seen 48 political murders, 329 abductions and 2,245 cases of torture, and there have been many more since. We have seen the media gagged, and reputable international broadcasters expelled and labelled as terrorists. All those are the attributes of fascist regimes through history.

Nor was the election fair. From the outset the process has been corrupted, as the Foreign Secretary set out in detail today and as the reports from the Commonwealth and SADC so clearly and graphically confirm. It is worth remembering that in March last year SADC set out 11 election recommendations that were subsequently endorsed by all SADC members, including Zimbabwe. Not one of the 11 recommendations has been adhered to.

I shall remind the House of some of those recommendations and what happened. They included impartial international and regional election observers at the earliest possible stage—that did not happen; equal access to the media for opposition parties—that was not allowed; impartial policing of the ballot—laughable; presidential candidates to be provided with free and adequate security during the election process—laughable; and unimpeded freedom to campaign and freedom to vote throughout the country—laughable.

The result sets several serious tests in different areas. It is a test for southern Africa of whether the region genuinely adheres to the principles of democracy set out in the Harare declaration. It is a test for the Commonwealth of whether the principles on which it is founded mean anything at all. It is also a test for the Prime Minister, who has spoken about

"healing the scar … that is Africa"

to show whether he can, even belatedly, give the leadership to mend what is not just a scar but an open and bleeding wound on the body of that great continent.

I do not believe that what the Foreign Secretary has said today goes nearly far enough—it sounded like just more of what we have heard before. Once again, it is hope against experience. Why does not the Foreign Secretary today make it clear that the Government do not recognise the result or the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean Government and take steps accordingly?

He did.

He did not.

Will the Foreign Secretary urgently consult his European Union counterparts in Barcelona this evening to see whether the targets of the sanctions can be extended in the way that the MDC has called for today? Will he seek the maximum degree of non-recognition of this result and of the Government of Zimbabwe throughout the international community, including suspension from the Commonwealth? Will he and the Prime Minister, together with the United States, take a lead in building an international coalition, including Europe and responsible members of the Commonwealth, to bring real and determined pressure to bear on Zimbabwe for new presidential elections to be held? Mr. Mugabe has got away with this election because the international community in general, and our Government in particular, did not show him months ago that we meant business when we called for free and fair elections. Like all tyrants, Mugabe has fed on the belief that brave statements from this Government and others were all words and would not be backed up by action. To our shame, for many months, he was correct in that belief.

The time for mere words is now over. There must be no more quiet diplomacy, no more hand wringing and no more supine inaction. They have all failed, and they have failed the people of Zimbabwe in the process. For the sake of the people of Zimbabwe, and for the sake of democracy, the Government must recognise that the time has come to stop talking and to start doing.

I understand fully the right hon. Gentleman's anger and frustration about what has happened because I share it, but much of his response amounted to tilting at windmills. He asks for us to take action in the Commonwealth. We have sought to do so. I have been in the lead in that regard, but the fact is that the Commonwealth is a free association of 54 countries. There was not a majority—and still less unanimity—in the Commonwealth for suspension before elections took place. I hope that there is now agreement inside the troika, because that would be an important mark of the Commonwealth's disapproval of what has happened.

The right hon. Gentleman asks us to build an international consensus. With respect, that is exactly what we have been doing. He asks for action. That is exactly what has been secured inside the European Union.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the result?

I thought that I had made it palpably obvious that we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy. There is no difference between the position that we have taken and that taken by President Bush.

As the right hon. Gentleman asked for action, I say to him gently that we were able to secure the required unanimous approval of the European Union to impose sanctions. As it happens, those sanctions are being imposed on a broader basis than those that the United States, with which we have been working closely, has introduced up to now. Had the right hon. Gentleman been holding my office, with his party's approach to the European Union, would that unanimity have been achieved?

I regret the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. Neither Opposition spokesmen nor anyone else should move the blame for what has happened from where it must lie. It cannot be moved to the international community or to the House. The blame and responsibility must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Nothing would please them more than if they were let off the hook by the kind of ill-advised remarks that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench.

I hope that the House will send out its determination that it recognises where the responsibility lies but, equally, that it recognises our responsibility to continue relentlessly to do all that we can by deeds as well as words to ensure that Mugabe and ZANU-PF are accorded neither the international status nor the assistance and recognition that they seek. Instead, we shall strive for a democratic election in Zimbabwe and a democratic Government.

I feel constrained to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) when the Prime Minister reported after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—that if ever there were occasions on which the House should speak with one voice, it is occasions such as this.

The Foreign Secretary said that we should not be surprised by the result. We should not be surprised either by the conduct of the elections, as the behaviour of ZANU-PF during them was entirely consistent with the campaign of violence, abuse and intimidation that characterised its behaviour towards opponents in the period running up to them. The sad and unpalatable truth is that, for all its optimism, it would have taken little short of a miracle for the Movement for Democratic Change to have won the election.

In light of the Commonwealth observers group's trenchant and unequivocal condemnation, would not it be inconceivable for the troika to reach any conclusion other than that suspension was a necessary and inevitable response from the Commonwealth? What hope would there be for the Commonwealth as an institution based on the rule of law and on respect for human rights if its response to these events was seen to be feeble?

The Foreign Secretary is right to put his trust in concerted action, and to engage the European Union. This is an occasion on which we should acknowledge the helpful, even exemplary, support that the United States has shown in these matters, both in the Administration and in the Congress.

Finally, does the Foreign Secretary share my disappointment about the consequences of Mr. Mugabe's re-election? The right hon. Gentleman outlined the terrible domestic conditions in Zimbabwe, which will now continue, but Mr. Mugabe's behaviour has also placed an enormous burden on the whole of the region of southern Africa. Is not it a terrible tragedy that these events may set back, perhaps irretrievably, the renaissance for Africa in which so much hope has been invested?

May I commend the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and the tone in which they were offered? I agree that this debate should not be an occasion for partisanship in the House. There needs to be unanimity. After all, an important element here is that hon. Members are democratically and freely elected. Some of us have lost quite a few elections, even in the free and fair conditions that apply in this country. I spent 18 years in opposition, so I know about losing elections freely. That is bad enough, but to have an election stolen from one is much worse.

Freedom!

Just like Israel.

I will not be drawn down that route.

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked whether it would be inconceivable, in the light of the trenchant comments made in the Commonwealth observers' initial report, for the troika not to recommend suspension. I understand the strength of that view. He and the House know very well that, even on the evidence available in December, the Government thought that the Commonwealth ought to suspend Zimbabwe's membership. Given that the evidence has mounted since then, and given what Commonwealth observers have concluded, we think that still more today.

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked about the future of the Commonwealth. I happen to believe that it is a strong organisation. Those of us who have attended some of the Commonwealth celebrations and seen, for example, the breadth of the nongovernmental organisations involved will appreciate the huge contribution that the Commonwealth makes to civic society—and not just to inter-governmental relations—in its 54 member countries. Plainly, however, the Commonwealth's reputation could not but be damaged if no action were taken in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife for mentioning the exemplary support that the United States has shown. I would add, parenthetically, that, of course, the US has interests in Zimbabwe, but that the United Kingdom's interests there are far greater. I hope that those who say that the US worries only about its own interests, is isolationist and does not consult its international colleagues, will recognise that it has been highly consultative over Zimbabwe, as in so many other matters, and that it has taken action because of its responsibility as a member of the international community rather than for its own, particular reasons.

As to the overall consequences of the election on the region, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asks whether it will set back irretrievably the chances of a renaissance in Africa. I do not believe so; I do not believe that we should accord Mugabe that power. This is a setback, and it will be even more of a setback if other leaders in southern Africa do not recognise the huge task that they now face to rebuild confidence not only in other southern African countries but in Zimbabwe itself.

My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is no time for narrow party points—the situation is far too serious. One of the most important things that he has told the House is that both SADC and the Commonwealth observers have roundly condemned the election as a total fraud. That is an important message because it gives the lie to those in the Mugabe camp who try to argue that this is a north-versus-south argument, the rich against the poor in Africa. We must establish both in this country and internationally that it is the ordinary people of Zimbabwe who have been robbed in this election. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House that he will take that message to Barcelona. The role of the European Union is not to lead world opinion but to work with our friends in democratic states throughout Africa and elsewhere who recognise that this election is a fraud against democratic principles.

One of the most certain consequences of the election is that the situation in Zimbabwe will continue to deteriorate. It is implausible to say that it will get better or stabilise. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will continue to support people such as Mr. Tsvangirai in the MDC and those who are pushing for democratic change? When one party has stolen an election, it is legitimate to suspend the normal terms and conditions of impartiality. We should support those in Zimbabwe who will fight for democracy.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right to say that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe have been robbed by this election result. One of the many untruths that Mugabe was trying to peddle is that this is a black-versus-white issue. However, if one looks at those who have been the target of the ZANU-PF police state machine, one finds that they are overwhelmingly the blacks of Zimbabwe, particularly the urban blacks and those in rural areas who have dared to express opposition. All the reports overwhelmingly show that to be the case. As far as I know, the SADC parliamentary forum is almost exclusively black—it has condoned the outcome of the elections—and, like the Commonwealth itself, the Commonwealth observers group is multi-racial and is led by a Nigerian.

We will continue to do all that we can to support everybody in Zimbabwe who has at their heart the universal principles of democracy and of free and fair elections.

The Foreign Secretary is aware, because I have told him, that when my father was the last governor of southern Rhodesia, I visited with him the polling stations on the first day of those remarkable elections, which were not perfect, when tens of thousands of people queued, as they have done in the past few days, to express for the first time their democratic wish. So much bright hope was vested for the future, only for it to be smashed to pieces in the last few days. The message that should go from this House to the people of Zimbabwe is that we feel for them in their great difficulty and in the grief that most of them will be suffering.

May I urge the Foreign Secretary to lobby vigorously, if he is entitled to do so, among the 54 members of the Commonwealth to ensure that the troika does its duty and that the spirit of those reports, which will have been gained with considerable difficulty, is honoured in the only proper decision that the troika could make?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for their tone. I recall our conversation, in which he recounted with great poignancy his experiences of being alongside his father when an entirely peaceful handover of power took place. Great hope was vested in Mugabe and many others, and there was a free and fair election, which led to an outcome that was not anticipated. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that bright hope has been smashed to pieces.

The hon. Gentleman asks me whether we shall lobby vigorously within the Commonwealth. Yes, we will. Given all the pressures on the observers, including subtle intimidation—European Union observers were refused admission—and some violence, it is remarkable that they have come out with such strident conclusions. Given those pressures, their conclusions should be treated with greater seriousness.

My right hon. Friend made a sad statement, but one that came as no surprise to any of us who have watched events in Zimbabwe over recent years. There was an erosion of democracy in the elections and attacks on the freedom of the press and the judiciary.

Should we not be making it clear to people in Zimbabwe, especially to ZANU-PF members and supporters, that the solution lies in their hands? It is for them to wake up before it is too late and before they have destroyed democracy and freedom in their country. They need to change direction now.

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to imply that there has been extraordinary short-sightedness, even for people in ZANU-PF. They will not secure a bright future for their country nor an economic recovery. Instead, by stealing the election, they will make the situation in Zimbabwe worse.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's robust words in condemning the farce of an election in Zimbabwe. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the statement from the SADC parliamentary forum election observation mission, which indicated that even members of the mission were part of the targeted violence in the run-up to the elections?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is off to Barcelona, and that he will be discussing Zimbabwe in depth with our colleagues in the European Union. Will he tell the House whether he plans to contact the Heads of Government in the SADC region and to support the statement from the head of the SADC observer mission, who is calling for dialogue between the leaders of the SADC Governments and Mugabe, to try to arrive at some reconciliation or a new process that could lead to democracy in Zimbabwe?

I have seen the SADC conclusions, and I am placing copies of them and those of the Commonwealth observers in the Library. We shall be in touch with relevant Heads of Government within the SADC region. One of the reasons why the SADC conclusions are so powerful is that they come not from Government representatives but from parliamentary representatives.

In totally condemning Mugabe's tyranny, are not Labour Members being entirely consistent? In the 1960s, we used every opportunity to denounce the tyranny of Smith's illegal regime. I do not remember too many protests from Conservative Members in those days.

Has not the time come, given all that has happened this week, for the majority in the Commonwealth to come off the fence, recognise their democratic responsibilities and suspend Zimbabwe for as long as Mugabe is in power?

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I shall gently pass over my hon. Friend's earlier remarks.

It is a time for decision by those in the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in Coolum, Australia last week, decided to set up the troika. They have already had the published report. There will be a further, more detailed report. The view of the House is clear from the observations that Members on both sides have made and would make if they were members of the troika.

Clearly, it is essential that the House remains united today in its condemnation of this rigged election and the abuse of human rights by Mugabe and his regime. Is the Foreign Secretary comfortable with the role that has been played by President Mbeki, especially bearing in mind this morning's press reports that South African observers have said that the election was free and fair, when clearly it was not? Will he again underline how much damage will be done to South Africa if President Mbeki makes the wrong decision at the troika, and also underline today's run on the rand, which shows that there will be terrific disinvestment in South Africa if it is seen to support the regime in Harare?

We all recognise that President Mbeki of South Africa bears a very heavy burden of responsibility not only for the economy and prosperity of his country, but, because of South Africa's size and importance, for the prosperity of the entire region and the reputation of Africa as a whole. I am sure that he will read with care the remarks that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and many others.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the history of Africa and especially southern Africa, minority military-backed regimes have inevitably been removed in time? If we look to Zambia, South Africa and elsewhere, we see that the trade union movement has played an important role in that process. In our response to this rigged election, should not we endeavour to reinforce our support for the mass independent trade unions in Zimbabwe as part of the process of democratic change?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the many arguments against military regimes is that they are inherently unstable and short-lived and must be replaced by democracies. As to the trade union movement, it is not coincidental that Morgan Tsvangirai himself was a leader of that movement in Zimbabwe. On support for trade unions across Africa and indeed the world, yes, we agree that it is necessary. My hon. Friend may know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), has been doing a huge amount of work to ensure that we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office better support the work of the international trade union movement.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that not only this House, but the whole civilised democratic world must be united against what has happened in Zimbabwe in recent times? Does he agree that while Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF can claim a sordid victory, they certainly cannot claim any democratic legitimacy? Will he indicate to the House what action we can take to seek to protect Morgan Tsvangirai and members of the Movement for Democratic Change, the opponents of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF? Will he also explain how we are going to help the poor people of that country, who were given a foretaste of what Mr. Mugabe would do way back in 1983–84, when he indulged in mass genocide of thousands of Matabele who opposed his Government?

The hon. Gentleman has played a consistent and commendable role in the matter of Zimbabwe—and, before that, of Southern Rhodesia—over many years, which I commend. He drew attention to the massacres that took place in Matabeleland in the mid-1980s. That was a shameful episode not only for Zimbabwe, but for the international community, including the United Kingdom, which failed to take action. That is another reason why the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were so ill judged. One of the things that makes the election results risible—I gather that this is the case from this morning's newspapers—is that it is said that Mugabe got a good vote in Matabeleland, where he is hated for palpable reasons. He could have got a good vote there only by methods that are never recognised in democratic and free countries. We will do all that we can to help people who have been in the lead of democratic movements of all kinds in Zimbabwe. I commend the hon. Gentleman's remarks about helping the poor people of Zimbabwe. The message that must go out from the House is that in everything we do as well as everything we say, we are working for the people of Zimbabwe and against a palpably undemocratic and illegitimate Government.

I wholeheartedly support the condemnation expressed by my right hon. Friend this morning. Although we have heard condemnation from the American Government and European leaders, we also desperately need condemnation of this rigged election from African leaders. Does he have any plans to discuss this rigged election not only with SADC leaders, but with other African leaders in general?

My hon. Friend will find that there has been a pretty high degree of condemnation. As I said, there has been condemnation by the Nigerian leader of the Commonwealth observers and by the parliamentary representatives who formed the SADC delegation. Earlier this year, the Ghanaian Foreign Minister condemned what had happened in Zimbabwe up to that point. It would be a huge error that would play into Mugabe's hands if we were to allow the myth to develop that Africa is supporting him while the rest of the world is not. Most of Africa is shamed by what Mugabe has done and is now, thankfully, saying so.

I fully associate both the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the Foreign Secretary's statement and fully endorse the efforts that he is undertaking. In addition, I endorse entirely what has been said about the necessity of strong action and reaction through the European Union. Does he share with me the concerns illustrated in papers previewing the Barcelona summit, which show that common foreign and security policy questions are 25th out of 25 in order of importance on the agenda? Will he make every effort in Barcelona to try to force the issue higher up the agenda? Will he also try to push for European Union colleagues to increase targeted measures against leading ZANU-PF members, and make every effort to secure a tougher sanctions regime that is aimed solely at the governing elite and not the ordinary people of Zimbabwe?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he expressed on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. He asked about Barcelona. The reason why common foreign and security policy appears low on the agenda is that the summit is principally about the economic reform agenda that was set in place two years ago at Lisbon. I assure him that that does not mean for a second that Zimbabwe is low on the overall agenda of the European Union, which has acted commendably and swiftly in all that it has done, from moving back in the autumn from article 8 to article 96 of the Cotonou agreement, through to its decisions on 18 February to impose the sanctions. We will consider whether we can take other targeted measures and toughen up the sanctions regime, but as he said, in everything we do, we will ensure that such measures are targeted at the illegitimate leadership of the Government and not the people of Zimbabwe.

This murderous tyrant is not only wreaking terrible damage in Zimbabwe, but seeking to provoke dangerous divisions in Africa and the Commonwealth. Will my right hon. Friend ignore the irresponsible, bellicose bluster of his shadow and continue to use careful diplomacy to try to encourage the neighbouring states to recognise that this is an issue not of race or colonialism, but of universal human rights and democracy?

Yes.

Could there not be at least one benefit from this sad tragedy that has befallen Zimbabwe and its people, namely that we may lose for ever any residual illusions about the nature of ZANU-PF and its Marxist dictator leader, Mr. Mugabe, who has acted entirely predictably, and whose actions could to some degree perhaps have been forestalled? That having been said, will Her Majesty's Government concert with the highest intensity with the United States Government, who have a good track record in dealing with rogue states in an appropriate manner?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, leaving aside ZANU-PF's ideological baggage—it is not the only party in the world to have ideological baggage—as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who spoke so movingly about his experience witnessing his father's role as the last Governor-General of that country, said, for quite a long period ZANU-PF had some hope and expectation behind it. It is a huge pity that it has failed to meet that expectation. As to working with the United States, the answer is yes. We are, and will continue to be, in close touch with the United States Government.

May I press the Foreign Secretary on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I did not feel received a suitable answer? Will he assure the House that when he speaks to his colleagues in Barcelona and elsewhere, they will discuss as a priority how they can guarantee the immediate and long-term safety of all those men and women in Zimbabwe who have had the courage to stand up to Mugabe and his thugs during the past few months?

I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) if he feels that I did not deal with that point. The answer is yes, we shall raise the issue of Zimbabwe not only at Barcelona, notwithstanding the constraints on the agenda, but also in the Foreign Ministers Council and at the European Heads of Government summit on a wider range of issues that will take place in Seville later this year.

Particularly in the light of the inability of South Africa, and President Mbeki in particular, to show greater leadership in the region, what future does the Foreign Secretary see for NEPAD and what role in particular should the G8 play in pushing that forward in the light of the election result?

NEPAD is about—[Interruption.] With great respect, it is not a laughing matter. If the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) does not know what the initials stand for, it shows a lack of information about a strategy for Africa, which I greatly regret.

The new partnership for Africa's development initiative is designed to try to turn round Africa's economic prospects and to lift Africa out of poverty. Africa is a continent which, uniquely out of all the continents in the world, has a declining, not growing, economy, and that is why the new African partnership is so crucial. The people of Africa should not be punished by the misbehaviour of one man, Mugabe, nor of his party. It is my great hope that what has happened in Zimbabwe overnight does not undermine the prospects of NEPAD, and, because of the way in which Mugabe is helping to reduce still further the prosperity of Africa, the paradox is that it becomes all the more urgent.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many hon. Members have constituents whose relatives have had farms seized in Zimbabwe or who have been threatened. Some of them have been killed and some of their innocent farm workers have been killed or brutally beaten. He will also be aware that those people are more worried than ever that Mugabe's thugs will believe that they can run rampant because they are unchallengeable and above the law. Does he therefore accept that this is no longer the time for lengthy discussion but for urgent action, as each passing day brings additional threats to people's livelihoods and safety? Will he therefore tell us the time scale for the troika to make its recommendations and for the Commonwealth to react to them? Will he ensure that the views of the House are relayed in terms not just of the unanimity of action that we believe needs to be taken, but also of its urgency?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, our concern, like that of the House, is for everybody in Zimbabwe, regardless of the colour of their skin, citizenship or nationality. It speaks volumes for that concern that no one this afternoon has directly raised the issue of all the British citizens who are there, but I should make use of the opportunity of the hon. Gentleman's question to say that we have particular responsibilities to them and we shall ensure that those are carried out. I completely understand the anxieties of the white community in Zimbabwe, but in recent months the main violence has overwhelmingly been against the black community there. One should not have to make that point, but we hope that everybody, whatever their racial origins, colour or citizenship, if they are resident in Zimbabwe, can, notwithstanding the tragedy, still look forward to a future in Zimbabwe.

As to the time scale for the troika, my understanding is that it is intended that the troika should meet next week, and as soon as I have more detailed information I shall make it available to the House.

The Foreign Secretary is correct to say that the consequences of Mugabe's victory will not be confined to Zimbabwe but affect surrounding countries. What plans are the Government putting in place to deal with the poverty and famine that flow directly from Mugabe's policies?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already put in place humanitarian assistance programmes in Zimbabwe. It is extraordinary that here is a country that was exporting large quantities of agricultural produce across southern Africa which now has people starving, not because of any natural disaster but because of the man-made, Mugabe-made, disaster, by which he has taken power illegitimately and, in the course of his misuse of power, has managed to collapse the Zimbabwe economy and much of the economy of the rest of southern Africa. That is his appalling legacy. I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend when I say that, within the resources available to her, she will continue to do all that she can to provide humanitarian aid across southern Africa where it is needed and assistance in fighting HIV/AIDS.

My e-mail inbox, like that of many of my hon. Friends, has been heavy with e-mails from constituents and direct from Zimbabwe, reflecting the concern about all communities in that country. But are we not all guilty of having looked for many years through rose-tinted spectacles at dictatorships in Africa? Were not the Government whom I supported responsible for turning their face away from the intimidation in Matabeleland in the early 1980s? Have we not all patronised the Africans as somehow being undeserving of the same quality of democracy as we would expect for our people? Should we not admit those things? Will the Foreign Secretary press for a ban on international travel for any of the adherents of the Mugabe dictatorship and ensure that it is made clear that any aid that goes to Zimbabwe—aid will be greatly needed in future weeks and months—comes from those democracies that Mugabe so much reviles?

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks are very wise and we all have lessons to learn here. He is particularly wise to say that it is and has been patronising of the international community somehow to imply that other standards should operate in Africa. A universal principle is at stake and, in so far as it needs spelling out, the great paradox or irony of the situation is that it was spelled out for the Commonwealth at the Harare meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1991 chaired by none other than Robert Mugabe.

On the ban on travel, the European Union and United States sanctions impose travel bans on 20 or so leading members of ZANU-PF. We are of course open to representations and shall consider whether those bans should be extended.

On aid, we shall make it clear that aid comes from the democracies that Mugabe so despises. We need democracy because it applies a universal principle of freedom; one of the other truths about democracies is that they are almost always much more prosperous than dictatorships.

The business of the House up to the Easter recess will be as follows:

MONDAY 18 MARCH—Debate on hunting.

TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. Until seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in Education and Skills Training" followed by a debate entitled "The Chinook Helicopter Crash".

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

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

FRIDAY 22 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.

MONDAY 25 MARCH—Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 26 MARCH—Hon. Members will wish to know that it is proposed that the House will meet from 11.30 am until 7 pm. The business of the day will be a motion to approve the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the registration of interest by Members who have not taken their seat.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.

Motion on the Easter Recess Adjournment.

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

[Monday 18 March 2002:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 15014/01 and 5119/02; Aircraft Noise. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 152-xx (2001-02).]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement.

On Friday 8 March the Adjournment debate in this Chamber was replied to not by the Minister responsible for the subject of the debate, but by a Government Whip. I raised the matter at the time, as you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were in the Chair. Was that a one-off occurrence or is it to be routine that Ministers will not be here to listen and respond to debates on their ministerial responsibilities, but leave it to Government Whips? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who initiated the debate, said, touchingly naively, that he wanted the Government Whip

"to assure me that he"—

the Whip—

"will ensure that a Minister with specific responsibility for this matter will be made aware of my concerns, and will respond to the calls that I have made."—[Official Report, 8 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 614.]

So the hon. Gentleman whose debate it was had to make a heart-felt plea that its subject matter would be passed on to the absent Minister, who by that time, like Elvis, had left the building.

That raises an issue of huge importance. Will the Leader of the House assure me, very firmly, that that occurrence will not be repeated and that the Government have not walked away from their responsibilities to such an extent that Ministers are no longer prepared to come to the House to respond to debates and be held to account?

The Leader of the House will be aware of the dreadful and appalling case of corruption that recently arose in Doncaster, where several Labour councillors were convicted of fraud. He should also be aware—if not, I am about to make him so—that yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said, in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), that

"a Conservative councillor was before the court at the same time."—[Official Report, 13 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 873.]

The Deputy Prime Minister was obviously trying to implicate or smear a Conservative councillor to put him in the same disgusting category as the large number of Labour councillors who were convicted.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Conservative councillor was acquitted of all charges, but the Labour councillors were convicted? I will understand if he is reticent about the issue. It must be difficult for Labour leaders who were involved with Ecclestone, Hinduja, Mittal and all the others to condemn their colleagues in local government. However, as the right hon. Gentleman was involved in none of those matters, I am sure that he will have no such inhibitions.

Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to the chaotic and increasingly disordered way in which statements are made in the House? Texts of statements are given to official Opposition spokesmen much later than has traditionally been the case. Whether that is cock-up or conspiracy, I can only guess. Will he find some way of giving the House more notice of statements? Today offers a good example. A very important statement such as that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could well have been made after the close of the markets yesterday evening. Attendance in the House is inevitably thin today because we do not have any votes. Consequently, many right hon. and hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the matter and would have been here had they known that the statement was to be made are, regrettably, absent. Will the Leader of the House get a grip on his colleagues? In most cases it is known at least 48 hours in advance when statements are due to be made, so will Ministers please give the House proper notice so that we can deal with them properly?

Lord Browne, who was one of the Prime Minister's much-vaunted people's peers, earned—I am happy for him—several million pounds over the past year. I know that hairdressers were disqualified from being people's peers, but can the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any limit on the earnings that those peers can enjoy?

I did not anticipate that the Conservative party would propose a reverse means test for Members of the second Chamber, but we look forward to that provision featuring in its submission on the reform of that Chamber. I am happy to say that I have no responsibility whatsoever for pay awards made to Sir John Browne. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Browne."] I certainly have a responsibility not to demote him; I am happy to call him Lord Browne. Having disclaimed the criticism of his pay award, I think that honour is satisfied between us.

I shall deal with the matters for which I have responsibility. On last Friday's Adjournment debate, I assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that, unlike Elvis, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), is alive and kicking. Indeed, he has shown no difficulty whatsoever about coming before the House. He has responded to 34 Adjournment debates since the last general election—by far the most achieved in a single Session by any Minister in the Government, or, I think, any in the previous Government. That is overwhelmingly because of the innovation of debates in Westminster Hall—which I welcome and support, unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for many years, including the period when he led the Labour group on Edinburgh district council. His colleagues there and in the House would be surprised by his being described as "touchingly naive". I take it that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to flatter my hon. Friend; I warn him that it will not work. Since the Adjournment debate, the Whip who replied to the debate has fully discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—

Impressive.

Indeed; I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the ministerial level of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which the matter was raised. The Whip also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to draw his attention to those matters that fell within the remit of the Home Office.

I can assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that such practice will not be routine. In Westminster Hall, the Government rightly provided a facility that has greatly increased hon. Members' opportunities to raise matters concerning their constituencies. In those circumstances, it is not improper for the Government and the House to look at ways in which we can ensure that Adjournment debates are fully serviced and replied to, without putting on Ministers a burden that interferes with other matters with which they have to deal, such as responding to hon. Members' correspondence. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does respond to correspondence.

On the Doncaster councillors, it is important for both parties to ensure that we apply the highest standards of propriety within our parties and make sure that legal requirements are fully observed. It would therefore greatly assist the House if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst could tell us that he will use his influence with Lady Porter to encourage her to return to Britain to face the court proceedings against her relating to when she was leader of a Conservative council.

Finally, on the issue of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have listened week after week to the right hon. Gentleman complaining that we do not have enough statements. Whenever we produce a statement, a complaint is made about it, and that happened again today. Let me remind him that this is the first time that a statement has been made to the House to announce the outcome of a Competition Commission—previously the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—inquiry. In their entire 18 years in office, a Conservative Minister never once came to the House to make a statement on the outcome of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, and I genuinely believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deserves to be congratulated on coming to the House. not criticised for it.

My right hon. Friend is a master of procedure, so may I ask him for advice? On Monday, we shall vote on a series of motions on hunting with dogs. If the motion to ban hunting with dogs is carried by the Commons, as I believe it will be, is there any way in which we in this Chamber—or perhaps Labour Members in another forum—can express a view on whether the Hunting Bill, which was carried by the Commons in the last Session, can be brought back and dealt with in this Session before November as an alternative to a new Bill being introduced and the business of hunting with dogs hanging round our necks for the next two and a half years?

My hon. Friend characteristically flatters me; I would describe myself only as a humble student of procedure, and I am constantly surprised at how much more there is to learn.

I remind my hon. Friend that the Minister for Rural Affairs has given a commitment that before we rise for the Easter recess he will respond to Monday's votes and outline how the Government intend to proceed in the light of them. I suggest that my hon. Friend save his question until that opportunity, which I understand may come next week.

Can the Leader of the House give some thought as to how best we can deal with the important issue of public disengagement with Parliament and politics? I think that he will accept that it is not just a matter of scepticism and cynicism about corruption, to which early-day motion 1003 relates, and to which reference has already been made.

[That this House condemns the behaviour of the former Doncaster councillor jailed on 12th March for accepting a bribe to change planning rules; congratulates former Doncaster councillor Ron Rose and the Yorkshire Post for their persistence in bringing the worst local government corruption case since the 1970s to light; congratulates South Yorkshire Police on its successful Operation Danum which has brought 21 councillors to justice; regrets the culture of institutionalised corruption which was allowed to develop unchecked by the national Labour Party; calls on the Government to introduce proposals for proportional representation to end one-party states in local government; and further calls on all parties to promote the highest standards of probity and public service in local government.]

Rather, there are longer-term concerns.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the interesting article in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph by Sir John Nott, a distinguished former Cornish Member of the House and a former Minister of the Crown? The headline is "Thatcher obsessed with spin", which shows that some things are never new. Has he looked at the report which the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), apparently launched yesterday on democracy, citizenship and political engagement? Does he accept that this is a matter of concern not just to the Government but to all parties in the House? What steps can be taken in the near future to identify, one would hope, the causes for the trend of cynicism and scepticism about the democratic parliamentary process?

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is not just a matter of low turnout at elections, which is perhaps a symptom of the disease, but that there are basic diseases behind that symptom? Low turnout is bad enough on average, but it is even worse in cases of safe seats when electors feel that they have no impact on the eventual result. This issue should concern every single Member of both Houses of Parliament, and should not simply be left to a Labour party document and the Labour party chairman.

I have not yet read the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly savour it. I always enjoy reading articles by Margaret Thatcher's former Ministers criticising her; it is difficult to keep up with the scale of those articles.

The issue of substance raised by the hon. Gentleman presents a profound challenge for all of us. This is not a party political point; it should exercise hon. Members in all corners of the House. There is clear evidence of a decline in esteem for this place. That is why it is so important that we modernise this place so that we appear relevant and part of the same century as our electors. However, there are much wider and deeper problems of disengagement from the democratic process, particularly among young people. That troubles me because if young people continue to be disengaged we shall face declining turnouts as that cohort of the population grows older. This is a matter to which we should all address our minds.

I am particularly concerned that, too often, publicity about the House centres on the high point of party political contests and the mud wrestling that goes with it. We are not portrayed often enough as a place of serious business carrying out a serious job of work, and until we achieve that image of ourselves, we shall continue to have a problem in gaining respect.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 927?

[That this House is aware of the deep unease among honourable Members on all sides of the House at the prospect that Her Majesty's Government might support United States military action against Iraq; agrees with Kofi Annan that a further military attack on Iraq would be unwise at this time; believes that such a course of action would disrupt support for the anti-terrorism coalition among the Arab states; and instead urges the Prime Minister to use Britain's influence with Iraq to gain agreement that United Nations weapons inspections will resume.]

It expresses the deep concern of 107 hon. Members at the United States proposals to take military action against Iraq.

So far, the Government have failed miserably to make a case for supporting the unilateral action proposed by President Bush. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Prime Minister will not announce support for that action, either in this country or on a ranch in Texas, before the House has had time fully to debate the issues based on facts, not belief? May we have a debate on that subject before the Easter recess?

I cannot promise a debate on that issue before the recess, as I have just announced business for every day before the recess. [Interruption.1 As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not appear entirely persuaded of that, he might like to consider pulling the Opposition day to make room for such a debate.

Yes.

There we are—my hon. Friend has struck a colleague in the shape of the right hon. Gentleman.

If such action were to proceed, of course it should be debated in the House. In fairness to the Government, we demonstrated a willingness to listen to the House and gave the House an opportunity to debate the issues before and during the military action in Afghanistan, when we had five full debates on the threat of international terrorism. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that, should there be any proposal for action, the matter would of course have to be debated in the House. However, I remind her that, as the Prime Minister keeps saying, no decision has been taken and, as I said last Thursday, no decision may ever be taken.

Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, will he reflect for a moment on what his reaction would have been when he was a leading light on the Opposition Benches had he been told that the then hon. Member for Peterborough, as a Under-Secretary or a Minister, was too busy—or too important—to respond to a debate in the Chamber? The right hon. Gentleman said that that will not be a routine occurrence. May I tempt him to go a little further and say that it will not happen again?

The right hon. Gentleman is always tempting, but on this occasion I find it possible to resist. I welcome the fact that there are now more opportunities than there were in his time for hon. Members to vent constituency issues. That is why Westminster Hall was created, and it is fulfilling that role adequately and properly. It is right that, in response to that additional opportunity for Members, we should consider the acceptable convention in respect to replying to debates, particularly in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, who has now responded to 34 Adjournment debates.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the apocryphal saying, the first will be last and the last will be first. I am normally last when it comes to oral Question Time, with the exception of two weeks ago when fortunately I was drawn first. That exceptional opportunity for me was quickly reversed when I discovered that my oral parliamentary question had been referred to another Department. I would not have objected to that one jot had not the Department—the Cabinet Office—answered a written parliamentary question on exactly the same subject only the week before. Seven other people had their questions transferred from the Cabinet Office to a range of other Departments that day, and I suspect I join them in feeling extremely miffed. Will my right hon. Friend bring his influence to bear on the various Ministers heading up our Departments, and tell them that it would be useful for Members seeking to question them about responsibilities if we knew precisely what they did? It would appear that certain activities are the responsibility of people in the Cabinet Office one day and of someone else the next day. That also applies to their colleagues at the Table Office.

Send her a written answer!

I think I can handle this one myself, thank you very much.

If my hon. Friend advises me next time she is drawn first, I shall certainly intervene with the relevant Department and make sure that her question is treated with the dignity and seriousness that it requires. To respond to the issue of substance, I am well aware of the deep frustration to Members of finding that their questions have been transferred. Indeed, if my hon. Friend consults the submission that I have made on behalf of the Government to the Procedure Committee's inquiry into questions, she will find that one of the points that I highlight is the need to try to reduce the number of times when questions are transferred. I hope that we can work with the Table Office to ensure that questions are tabled to the appropriate Department in the first place. In the meantime, I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the Cabinet Office.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department to come to the House next week to make a statement about the selection of city status? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of this morning's announcement, there is a growing view that the Government are engaged in a cynical political fix? Is he aware that, since 1997, six towns on the United Kingdom mainland have received city status, and that three of them did so six months before the last general election? Cynics might expect that those cities would all be Labour-held seats.

They are.

They are; the hon. Lady is right. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the Government have decided—rather cruelly, because the next election is not expected for at least three years—to fix it yet again today? The cities created on the UK mainland all have Labour MPs, and there is a growing fear that if a town that does not have a Labour MP, it will never become a city. That is demeaning to the honour of the process.

Of the six towns that have been declared cities today, two are in Northern Ireland and therefore do not have Labour MPs. Of course, I understand that, given the very large number of towns that now have Labour representation in this place, it is increasingly difficult to find other towns that might meet the criteria. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman for having missed out on this occasion, but I ask him to consider carefully, before making any further remarks, whether what he has just said would be supported by the Conservative parties of Preston, Newport and Exeter, and I congratulate those new cities on their success.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on the Government's energy review? It was a very good debate, but one and a half hours was not long enough, given the number of Members who wished to speak and the number of interests involved. Can we have a full debate on the matter in this Chamber? Energy is an important subject that affects every aspect of life in this country. While I am on my feet, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he responded to the opening points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the way in which he presented his points. These exchanges are now becoming the highlight of the week in the Chamber, given the inept performance of the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's questions.

I am so glad that my hon. Friend got that last line in, as it explains the preceding passage.

You wrote it.