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

The business of the House for next week is as follows:

I thank the Leader of the House for telling us the business.

A Second Reading debate on the Enterprise Bill on 9 April has been announced. I am led to believe that that Bill has not yet been published, but it is rumoured that it may contain more than 250 clauses and in excess of 20 schedules. The Leader of the House is putting us in a position whereby a major Bill containing enormously complex material, which, I gather, has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, will not be published until next week when the House goes into recess for two weeks. Immediately on the House's return, it will be asked to conduct its Second Reading debate. Surely that flies completely in the face not only of all parliamentary convention but of the Leader of the House's principles—which he likes to set out frequently—which include a belief in the value of pre-legislative scrutiny and in the necessity for the House to have a proper opportunity not only to debate and to scrutinise but to consult legitimate outside interests before doing so. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter.

Given that we are not exactly under enormous pressure of time, will the Leader of the House consider delaying, even at this late stage, the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill? We would thus have more time properly to consider it and properly to consult outside the House before we debate it.

There is an item in a newspaper today headed: "Labour peer quits in job row". Apparently, the peer in question is a nice man called Lord Warner, who is a Labour peer. I gather that, at one time, he was a special adviser to no less a man than the Foreign Secretary. Lord Warner lists law and order as his special interests in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", so he is obviously a good chap. I am really inviting the Leader of the House to tell me that the story is completely wrong. It is reported that this nice man was going to be offered the job of head of the Audit Commission, and that that was endorsed by No. 10, no less. However, it is alleged that another nice man, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—to whom the House has had to get used, as he comes here so often to grovel—for some reason vetoed the appointment of the nice Lord Warner.

We really must get to the bottom of this. If that Secretary of State is messing things up again, defying No. 10 and disappointing one of his colleagues so much that a Labour peer has resigned from his party and joined the Cross Benches, we need to know more about it. Moreover, if that nice man has seen fit to resign, what has happened to the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords? Some very serious allegations were made last week—

Another very nice man.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) says that the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords is a nice man, but that is not how he came across on Sky Television last weekend, when he made some very serious allegations. Why has he not stepped aside until his name is cleared—if it is going to cleared? Why is he still in his job, when Lord Warner has left the Labour party? I think that we need to know.

I genuinely regret to say this, but the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament is becoming more and more obvious. We must not forget that, according to the House of Commons Library, the Prime Minister has a voting record of 3 per cent. That means that he bothers to turn up to this House to vote on only 3 per cent. of occasions. What the people of Sedgefield think about that I do not know as, apart from anything else, the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent them in the House of Commons.

However, the problem is even worse. The Prime Minister was not present for the debate on our military involvement in Afghanistan, even though the Secretary of State for Defence has said that our military personnel may be putting their lives on the line. The Prime Minister was not here to support the Secretary of State, or our young men and women in uniform. I have heard, although I can scarce believe it, that, at the material time, the Prime Minister was talking to Labour MPs about foxes. I hope that the Leader of the House can confirm or deny that.

If the Prime Minister seriously believes that foxes are more important than the lives of our young men and women in uniform, he should be ashamed of himself. He should come to the House to make an apology. I hope that the Leader of the House will urge him to do so.

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the Enterprise Bill. It is a very important Bill—

indicated dissent.

It is indeed an important Bill, and we understood that the principle on which it is based was supported by the Conservative party, just as it is extensively supported throughout industry and business. I am happy to confirm that the Bill will be published next week. By my reckoning, that will allow a clear two weeks before the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is one of the more able and intellectual of Opposition Front-Bench Members, and I am sure that it is within his wit to prepare a 25-minute speech over the two-week period of the recess.

indicated dissent.

Apparently, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not have faith in the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, or believe that he can prepare a 25-minute speech in that time. It is very important that the Government respond to the strong wish in industry, commerce and business to improve the competition regulations. We must make sure that those regulations promote competition and break up cartels, and that they are more independent of political control. I totally support the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will be able to say the same when he returns after the recess, when he will have had plenty of leisure to consider these matters in full.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observation that Lord Warner is a very nice man. He used another term to describe Lord Warner that is not one normally used by Labour Members, but I am happy to accept his word that he is also "a good chap"—I hope that I have got the phrase right. I shall not dispute either of those points with the right hon. Gentleman, and no Labour Member would suggest that Lord Warner was not a nice man or a good chap.

However, I have been sitting here wondering what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if Lord Warner had been appointed to chair the Audit Commission. I know exactly what he would have said. He would have said, "Another of Steve's cronies gets an appointment … a Labour special adviser to Labour Ministers … it is disgraceful that such a man should have a very important position of independence." The right hon. Gentleman should spare us the humbug. He hits us over the left ear and, when we react in a different way, he tries to hit us over the right ear.

Lord Carter has issued a full statement through his lawyers fully rebutting the allegations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It was available to Sky Television before it went ahead with the programme. I very much regret that the current standards of journalism are such that Sky proceeded with the piece, paying no attention to the rebuttal and making no mention of the denial. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to show a greater sense of integrity and honesty than Sky by studying the rebuttal with great care.

I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman, as he appears worried about it, that the electors of Sedgefield have full confidence in their Member of Parliament. I would be prepared to bet, fairly confidently, that they will demonstrate that again at the next general election. As for where the Prime Minister was, I was at the meeting that he is alleged to have attended. The Prime Minister left the meeting before the discussion about foxhunting, in order to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia. I consider that to be an entirely legitimate activity for the Prime Minister of Britain, and personally I am rather glad that Britain has a Prime Minister who has the respect of other Heads of Government around the globe.

The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a general matter that has been raised in the press. I had understood—perhaps I was wrong, and perhaps Conservative Members will correct me—that the Opposition had tabled their emergency motion to demonstrate their support for our action in rounding up al-Qaeda terrorists and standing shoulder to shoulder with our United States allies. We are, of course, grateful for that support. I am sorry if Opposition Members feel hurt by the fact that we did not turn up in sufficient numbers to convince them of our gratitude for their loyal support, but if they really want to show support of a bipartisan character for our action in Afghanistan and the work of our troops there, they ought to say so clearly and unequivocally, and stop scoring cheap party political points.

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1041, which concerns military action against Iraq?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is a debate and substantive motion in the House before any further British forces are deployed in any military action beyond present commitments against Iraq by land, sea or air, and if necessary to recall Parliament during any recess for that purpose.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a specific undertaking that there will be no deployment of any British troops on any exercise involving Iraq until there has been a debate in the House?

Also, will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the need for clarity and an early statement on the Government's intentions in relation to House of Lords reform? As he will recall, on Tuesday, in answer to our questions, he himself said:

"I also welcome the Public Administration Committee's thoughtful contribution to the debate, which has proved that it is possible to find a centre of gravity on the composition of reform".—[Official Report, 19 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 163.]

It would seem that the Prime Minister had not read the right hon. Gentleman's words when he said yesterday, on the very same subject:

"There are many different voices."—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 304.]

I am a great admirer of the dexterity and ingenuity of the Leader of the House, but how can he possibly reconcile those two entirely different statements?

As I have said on two previous Thursdays and am happy to say on a third, no decision has been taken on Iraq, and no decision may be taken. As for a debate in the House, I think that Ministers can refer with credit and with honour to what we did in relation to the action in Afghanistan. There were five full debates on the subject, at least two of which preceded any military action. I am confident that should any decision be made—I am not prejudging whether it ever will—there will be a full debate in the House before any such action.

As for reform of the House of Lords, I am tempted to say that no decision has yet been taken, although I am confident in this instance that one will be taken. I am distressed that the hon. Gentleman should imagine that the Prime Minister does not read my words and those of every other Member who speaks in the Chamber, and I do not see the gulf that the hon. Gentleman sees. There are a multitude of views on this matter—indeed, we have received more than 1,000 responses to the consultation—but as the Public Administration Committee has shown, it is not impossible to find a centre of gravity among the voices in favour of reform. I hope that we will continue to search for it, and will succeed in that search.

My right hon. Friend will know that eight weeks ago there was a breach of security at Heathrow airport and that more than £3 million was stolen. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Secretary then announced a review of security at Heathrow. Two days ago, there was another breach of security and £2 million was stolen. Will the respective Secretaries of State make statements in the House on the progress of the review? The issue is important, as money has been stolen and lives could be put at risk. We need to reassure the travelling public and restore their confidence in security at our airports.

I understand the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend and his constituents; indeed, it is also of acute interest to Members of this House who, like me, regularly pass through Heathrow and want to have confidence in security there. The particular incident to which he refers is being pursued by the police, who are questioning those involved. Of course, it must also be a factor in the review on security at Heathrow, which is already under way. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to write to my hon. Friend advising him when we expect the review to be concluded.

Although today's statement on Zimbabwe is obviously welcome, does the Leader of the House agree that, in the light of the atrocious way in which Mugabe stole the election and the appalling recriminations against that country's Opposition, the time is right to have a full day's debate—in Government time—on this important issue? Surely it would have been better to debate that rather than hunting, for example, last Monday. Does he agree that more targeted sanctions are needed, such as banning all flights by Zimbabwean airlines?

We have already adopted a battery of measures against Zimbabwe. First, we established an arms freeze; secondly, we have ensured that we provide no economic aid to its Government; thirdly, action is being taken, through European Union measures, to prevent President Mugabe and his cronies from flying to this country, and against any assets that they hold.

We have taken great care to ensure that we do not adopt measures that would hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who already suffer enough as a result of President Mugabe, without our adding to it. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that there are some 40,000 British passport holders in Zimbabwe, who want to visit Britain regularly. We would want to reflect very carefully before adopting a measure that might hit them harder than anybody else.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospital trust mergers need to be considered carefully? Several of my constituents are concerned that the proposed merger of Telford's Princess Royal hospital and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital will prove disadvantageous. Can we have a debate in the House on hospital trust mergers?

I am well aware of the enormous local sensitivity to hospital mergers and the great affection that communities have for their local hospital, which underlines their faith in the national health service. I fully understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise this issue and put it on the record, and I shall invite my colleagues at the Department of Health to write to him. Obviously, I cannot promise a debate on the topic to which he refers, but I can assure him that these matters are followed closely at ministerial level.

We hear weekly of the Government's intention to change the drugs laws, most notably through the reclassification of certain soft drugs, but no legislation or statutory instruments to that effect have so far been proposed. How will the process be pursued? Will a Bill be introduced, and will hon. Members be given the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals? Most important, given that we are talking about the most fundamental change to drugs laws since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, will we be allowed to vote on the Government's proposals?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have already made a number of statements on this issue, and some local initiatives are under way. I am sure that the entire House followed with close interest the results of the policing experiment in south London, which has actually increased the number of arrests of those who peddle hard drugs. That is particularly welcome.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, no decision has been announced by the Home Secretary, so it would be premature for me to say how we would implement such a decision. However, the House has not been short of opportunities to debate the matter; indeed, a full debate took place only two or three months ago, if I recall rightly. I am sure that we will return to the matter again.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that today marks the end of car manufacturing in Luton? After almost 100 years, Vauxhall is closing, resulting in the loss of 5,000 jobs in the region. He will doubtless want to join me in thanking the workers, unions and local authority members who tried so hard to retain car manufacturing in!my constituency. Will he agree to an early debate on how to ensure that companies such as General Motors undertake to consult employees and the Government on an ongoing basis before such major decisions are taken, and that they take full responsibility in ensuring that compensation and assistance is provided to regenerate local economies, which are devastated by such decisions?

The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend on the loss of employment in Luton and wish to raise its concern about the loss of employment for several thousand people across Europe within Vauxhall production. I agree with my hon. Friend that if a work force and local community have given their loyalty and contribution to a company in the way that her constituents have done for Vauxhall, they are entitled to look to the company to help them to adjust to the process of change. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are assisting in all the ways that they can to ensure that those who were employed by Vauxhall have the opportunity of fresh work and Luton has the opportunity of a fresh start for its economy.

When the House returns after the Easter recess, may we have a debate—this time in Government time—on the progress of action in Afghanistan?

I shall keep all those issues under review. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have just announced the business for the first week after the recess and that will include a day's debate on armed forces personnel, when I am sure that many references to Afghanistan will be made. I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will wish to speak further about those of our personnel in action in Afghanistan.

Could we have a debate on small businesses so that the House could congratulate my constituent, Mr. Shelim Hussein, who was named the young Asian business man of the year? In a short time, he has gone from being a waiter in a restaurant to the owner of a business with a turnover of £50 million, under the benign influence of an enterprise-friendly Labour Government. Could we also congratulate Mr. Hussein on his statement that however big his business grows he will still have it firmly located in the brand new city of Newport?

I am happy to say that my hon. Friend has relieved me of the obligation to have a debate in order that he may congratulate his constituent, as he has just done so eloquently and convincingly. I welcome the fact that he has mentioned the success of the young Asian business man of the year, because it underlines the theme that I have often mentioned to the House of the enormous asset to this country of those who have come here and made their home here and the strength to Britain of being a multicultural, multiracial society.

May I draw to the attention of the House early-day motion 910?

[That this House calls upon the Parliamentary Ombudsman to initiate an immediate independent inquiry into the Equitable Life affair and the gross dereliction of duty of the regulators appointed by the Government to monitor Equitable Life policies.]

The motion has now attracted 147 signatures from Members on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to persuade the parliamentary ombudsman to address the issue, to give us an independent inquiry and to achieve a satisfactory conclusion for more than 1 million policy holders, past and present, who believe that they have been disadvantaged?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having pursued an issue of immense and real concern to thousands of United Kingdom citizens. It is an important principle that the ombudsman is independent of Government and not subject to pressure from Ministers, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ombudsman has the matter before him. He has, sensibly, concluded that it would not be proper for him to take action pending the outcome of the inquiry by Penrose, which has already been appointed by the Government, but I am sure that he will return to the matter and consider what action he can take once we have received the report.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the ongoing crisis in the railway industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know why Opposition Members laugh, because they are the cause of it. That crisis covers not only Railtrack but the train operating companies, two of which have recently had subventions from Government to dig them out of financial difficulties. It is alleged that another four are in serious financial difficulties. Maintenance is an ongoing problem and train delays are getting worse. More than half of the delays are due to train operating companies, not Railtrack. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only a Labour Government can sort out the mess in the rail industry and that it is time for a full debate in which all the options can be considered, including wholesale renationalisation of the rail industry?

I fully share my hon. Friend's sentiment, but I could have drafted his question slightly differently.

Tell him about your philosophy.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful idea. I might take refuge in it if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) presses me too far.

I and my colleagues believe that we were right to take action and end the competition for Railtrack's resources between the travelling public and the private shareholder. That is why I hope that what results from administration will be a company that can devote itself single-mindedly to serving the travelling public without having to serve the master of private shareholders. We shall continue to ensure that investment goes into the rail industry. Those who travel on the continent are well aware of the distances involved and of the enormous gulf between the performance of our railways and that of the better continental railways, resulting from the long period of neglect under the previous Administration.

May we have an early debate on the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, particularly in the light of concerns raised by hospital chaplains against whom the Act is being used to stop them receiving information about the religious affiliation of patients in hospitals? My constituent, Rev. Graham Skinner, wrote that his chaplaincy team had found the new legislation to be a millstone for their ministry. That was not intended when the legislation was enacted. It is now affecting many vulnerable people. May we have a debate so that those concerns can be brought out into the open?

I am well aware of some hon. Members' concerns about how the Data Protection Act is impinging on their constituency work. I am actively pursuing that matter and hope to bring any findings before the House. The Data Protection Act was plainly correct in principle and in its objective—to protect the rights of our citizens and constituents—but it must be applied with common sense. It should not become a means of denying our citizens and constituents their rights.

I shall happily look further into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. He may have encountered an over-official interpretation of the Act. I am not aware of a parallel case, but it is important that a law that was intended to protect our people benefits them rather than detracts from their quality of life.

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the state of the transport network in Kent Thameside? I ask because it is an area with massive inward investment and is of huge strategic importance to the whole nation. Several outstanding transport issues remain, particularly the state of the railway network, the channel tunnel rail link, Ebbsfleet station and now the possibility of an airport at Cliffe in north Kent. Those strategic issues impact on the whole nation, so will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the subject?

My hon. Friend raises some strategic and profound issues affecting the region that he represents. It is right for him to put his constituents' concerns before the House. I encourage him to examine further ways to ventilate them, perhaps in Westminster Hall. In the meantime, he will share our pleasure that section one of the channel tunnel link is on schedule and should be completed thisyear.

Can the Leader of the House inform us how many additional cannabis users and dealers have been attracted to the streets of Lambeth from other areas during the recent experiment?

I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question and I might be regarded with some suspicion if I could. I advise her to examine the results of the experiment carefully. I would personally applaud the police in that area if, as a result of the experiment, they were bringing to book more of those who peddle hard drugs—the ones that we should focus on.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the public interest report drawn up by external auditors KPMG, who have investigated serious allegations of political and financial mismanagement by Lincolnshire county councillors? The report is not yet in the public domain. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on improving the public availability of public interest reports, which is vital to restoring my constituents' confidence in local democracy?

My hon. Friend has just put some of the material of that report in the public domain, and I congratulate her on her vigilance. As I said last week when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised a similar issue, I fully deprecate any failure of probity, integrity or financial honesty in public life, whether it is in the House or local authorities. The best weapon against such corruption is transparency. The best remedy that we have is letting in daylight and making sure that the constituents themselves know what is going on.

Will the Leader of the House, who is always so reasonable and affable on these occasions, consider arranging for a debate ahead of the Chancellor's statement on his Budget on public spending, as we now learn that since the Government were elected in 1997, taxation receipts have increased by about 50 per cent? As the Leader of the House will know, in the west midlands the transport infrastructure is close to collapse, hospital waiting lists are rising, beds are blocked through lack of resources and crime on our streets is almost completely out of control. We need an urgent debate on when we will get value for money for all that extra taxation.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to be flattering in describing me as affable and I will not take offence at the description. In order to preserve that mood of affability in these exchanges, may I try to encourage him to take a more cheerful perspective on the public services that he has described? In the west midlands, as elsewhere, there are more doctors, more nurses and now more hospital beds than ever before. He will no doubt wish to congratulate the Government on the fact that we are on target to achieve by the end of this month the 20 per cent. reduction in bed blocking that we promised.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the ongoing crisis in the Scottish rail industry following the 24-hour strike last Tuesday.

That was not a proper strike; it was only one day.

The Leader of the House will also be aware that a further two strikes planned by ASLEF have been cancelled, but there are reports in today's paper that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has actively blocked a resolution of the Scottish rail dispute. Can the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain exactly what has been going on between the Minister for Transport and Planning in Scotland and the Secretary of State's Department? He should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

No sooner started than it finished.

I think that my hon. Friend has said quite enough.

I am very sceptical about the allegation to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) refers, and I advise him not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers; indeed, he would possibly be wise not to believe most of the things he reads in the newspapers. We are clear that these are primarily matters for the train operators themselves to resolve. They are not primarily in the first instance a matter for Government. We have always encouraged both sides to seek independent conciliation and arbitration to find a resolution, and we continue to do so.

Sadly, James Tobin died last week. He was best known for the tax that bore his name, an international tax on currency speculation to be used for developments in the third world, yet he had no sympathy for anti-globalisation rebels who took up the tax. Would he not have been pleased to see early-day motion 885?

[That this House notes that international currency transactions total more than $1 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to the real economy of tangible trade goods and services; believes that such enormous speculative flows have contributed to serious economic damage to countries and regions such as Mexico (1994), Southeast Asia (1997), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999) and Argentina (2001); further believes that a small levy on such currency speculation, the Tobin tax, named after the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, potentially in excess of $50 billion each year, for projects targeted towards ending global poverty; is pleased that this initiative now enjoys the backing of a number of governments and parliaments across the world, including France? whose parliament recently passed a law authorising its implementation; is heartened by the words of the Chancellor that innovative ways need to be urgently found, including currency taxes, to finance development; wishes the Chancellor a successful mission to the UN 'Financing for development' conference in Monterrey, Mexico; urges him to take steps towards the introduction of a internationally co-ordinated currency transactions tax, with the proceeds ring fenced for international substantial development objectives; and further urges the Chancellor to ensure that these proceeds do not replace either existing international aid disbursements or agreed commitments to increase international aid.]

It has been signed by 115 hon. Members, a wide range of respectable people from different parties. Would not James Tobin also have been pleased to see the ten-minute Bill that was introduced last week by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)? Can we not, therefore, now have a debate in Government time on what is seen increasingly internationally as a very important issue?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to pay tribute to James Tobin, whose work has provided an important contribution to the debate on international financial movements. I am sure that James Tobin would have been gratified to see the support that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have secured for their early-day motion.

The Tobin tax is a perfect, wonderful and impressive construct but it requires everyone in the world to participate in it in order for it to work. If just one held out against the tax, it would be very difficult to make it succeed in practice. It is essential that we find ways of increasing the resources that go into third world development; James Tobin had intended his tax to provide the funds. There will very shortly be just such a conference in Monterrey, where the British delegation will be promoting the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just made to continue the improvements that we are making in the British overseas aid budget, and to continue to ensure that we make steady progress towards the agreed international targets.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread disquiet in the House and outside about President Bush's remarks about an axis of evil, which suggest that we want to go to war on many fronts? There is also disquiet at the Government's rather quiescent attitude to those remarks. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would bring the Foreign Secretary to the House to make a statement on the matter, but I see that he is here already. Perhaps the Leader of the House would give him a nudge and ask him to disavow George Bush's remarks.

I am delighted to have delivered on my hon. Friend's request even before he made it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has addressed the House on the issue on several occasions.

The action that we took in Afghanistan was absolutely correct and plainly in defence of our national interest. It was not in the service of United States interests alone. We, too, lost citizens in the attack on the twin towers and are exposed to the complex, sophisticated and expensive terrorism mounted by al-Qaeda. It is important that we act whenever necessary to ensure that our people can live and travel the world in safety. We must continue to consider carefully the British national interest and act on it.

The Leader of the House may be aware that the TV Licensing recently changed its procedures. People who do not have a television set and give the authority that information are being visited by officials, who request admission to their home. That is causing enormous stress to several of my elderly constituents who have no television and feel harassed. Following the first visit, they are liable to receive more visits every couple of years thereafter. That is a gross intrusion into the privacy of people who do not receive BBC services. The change of policy is a result not of a debate in the House but Executive action. Might we have a debate, followed by a vote, to assess hon. Members' views?

I shall happily look into whether there has been a change of policy, but in my long constituency experience it has been the practice of inspectors to call on people who do not have a licence to investigate whether they have a television. There is nothing new in that: it is, after all, the role for which they have been appointed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that role, it is open to him to draft a Bill or table a motion in the House, but we need a system to ensure that people who have a television have paid for a licence and are not having a free ride on the back of the millions of law-abiding people in Britain who have done so.

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the Enterprise Bill. I raise the matter as a House point, not a party political one. The timetable that the Leader of the House announced is indecent, unjust and unreasonable, and I hope that he will reflect on his answer. I understand that if the Opposition want to table a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, they will need to do so by next Tuesday. That means that we shall have only a few hours in which to draft and table such an amendment.

The Leader of the House often claims to be a champion of proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. The timetable that he announced today makes those words ring rather hollow. If he is not prepared to announce a change of business, in future we shall have to judge him on his actions, not his words. I hope that he will be prepared to think again.

I am suitably intimidated by the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I shall reflect on his comments and consider whether an adjustment would be appropriate. On preparation for the debate, it is not unreasonable to announce a debate that is a clear two and a half weeks away and will still be two weeks away when the Bill is published. That seems an entirely reasonable time for those taking part in the debate—

The House will not be sitting.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to suggest that hon. Members do not work when the House is not sitting. Whenever there is a recess, someone, somewhere, is preparing for the first debate to be held on the day that we return. I do not take seriously the idea that Opposition Members are unwilling to work at any time during the fortnight's recess.

With permission, I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.

As the House will be aware, a Commonwealth troika consisting of Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia was authorised by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to review the outcome of the Zimbabwe elections in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report, and to decide on any action.

The troika met in London on Tuesday. It had before it the final report of the Commonwealth observers group. That confirmed the findings of the preliminary report that I put before the House in my statement last Thursday. The group concluded that

"the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors".

The troika accepted the conclusions in full and decided as a result to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth for one year with immediate effect. The issue will be revisited in twelve months' time having regard to progress in Zimbabwe, based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our appreciation to Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard and in expressing our full support for their conclusions.

Three months ago, on 20 December, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which I was a member, concluded that Zimbabwe was in "serious and persistent violation" of the Harare principles. It was my view at that stage that Zimbabwe should then and there be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: I made that case again at CMAG at the end of January, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in early March. As the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated day by day since December, it follows that we believe that suspension now is fully justified.

The Commonwealth depends above all on its moral authority and the force of the principles that it codified in Harare in 1991. That is why the decision was so important for the Commonwealth as a whole, as well as—of course—for Zimbabwe. That moral authority is what gives this decision its force. I am in no doubt, from the way in which the Government of Zimbabwe sought actively to divide the Commonwealth and to prevent it from taking decisions about suspension, that they were and are profoundly concerned about the international isolation that suspension signals.

Tuesday's decision was significant in many respects and above all for the fact that leaders of two key African nations have taken a clear and definitive stand in defence of the Commonwealth's fundamental principles. They have also underlined Africa's commitment to the universal and indivisible principles of democracy and human rights.

Suspension is one of the strongest measures that the Commonwealth can impose. In the past, countries have been suspended only after the violent overthrow of their elected Government. Zimbabwe's suspension is therefore a new departure. Moreover, the Commonwealth's decision is in addition to the targeted sanctions that the European Union, the United States and now Switzerland have imposed against the leaders of ZANU-PF. European Union Heads of Government also decided, at the European Council in Barcelona last weekend, to ask Foreign Ministers to consider options for further measures.

What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed on that once prosperous land by Robert Mugabe. Our commitment and that of the Commonwealth to the people of Zimbabwe remains as strong as ever. We have made it clear since 1997 that the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is very strong and that we were willing to provide considerable financial support for a land reform process that would be transparent and lawful and that would give priority to the needs of Zimbabweans in overcrowded communal lands. That position was supported by the international community as a whole, but rejected by the Mugabe regime.

At Abuja in early September last year we agreed a pathway for Zimbabwe that would have allowed for a resumption of international aid, including from the UK, for a programme of sustainable land reform implemented in accordance with the rule of law.

Respect for the rule of law and a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies are the only way back for Zimbabwe. We remain ready to do all that we can to achieve that. We will continue our programme of assistance for humanitarian and HIV/AIDS projects.

In the short term, the prospects in Zimbabwe look bleak, which is underlined by the murders since the election of Movement for Democratic Change activists and a commercial farmer and the fact that the Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has formally been charged with treason. Today, it is all the more urgent that the Government of Zimbabwe commit themselves to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation, as the leaders of the Commonwealth have called for. In that context, we shall do everything that we can to support Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and other African partners in their efforts to bring stability back to Zimbabwe.

That is what the people of Zimbabwe desperately need and today I believe that the whole of the democratic world supports them in that goal.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement on Zimbabwe and for, as usual, doing me the courtesy of giving me advance sight of it.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last Thursday, on a similar occasion when he made a statement to the House, he told us:

"I thought that I had made it palpably obvious that we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]

Would he tell the House what action the Government have taken in respect of diplomatic relations and other protocols with Zimbabwe as a result of that non-recognition of the result and its legitimacy? That is an important question in light of the recent Commonwealth troika decision to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth.

I also pay tribute to the outstanding leadership of Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. I suspect that many people feared that the Commonwealth would not be able to be decisive. Prime Minister Howard has succeeded where many thought that he would fail. The Opposition warmly congratulate him and his two colleagues on the troika.

The Commonwealth has taken action. The House wants to know what action the Government will now take. Once again there is little sign of any new or real initiative in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. May I press him? What discussions has he had in the past two days with President Mbeki of South Africa? I ask that question as South Africa has just announced that it recognises Robert Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe. That mixed signal is damaging not only to the Commonwealth and its democratic principles, but to the people of Zimbabwe, who are looking to the international community for assistance. How can it be that the troika accepted the Commonwealth observers' report but at the same time South Africa accepted its own observer report that the election process was acceptable?

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the outlook seems bleak. I am not as sure as he is that what has been done has been persuasive for Mr. Mugabe. Has the Foreign Secretary called in the Zimbabwe high commissioner about the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai was charged with treason yesterday? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to make it clear that any action taken against Morgan Tsvangirai will be unacceptable and an affront to democracy?

We have been calling for some time for an international coalition to confront Robert Mugabe. Is it not time to act on that? The Commonwealth and members of the South African Development Community and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, as well as the United States and the European Union, must all now put down a marker. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a clear marker is available: that any action against Morgan Tsvangirai that goes beyond the bounds of acceptable democratic behaviour will be seen as a hostile action against all those who believe in democracy and action will be taken accordingly?

Will the Foreign Secretary now start working towards bringing together that international coalition to work with the countries of southern Africa to bring about a rerun of this month's presidential election, but this time on an independently monitored and clearly free and fair basis and within months rather than years? Will he also agree that if the democratic void in Zimbabwe is not overcome, it will destroy all prospects of success for the region's most promising recent initiative, NEPAD? As one of Zimbabwe's foremost economists, John Robertson, has concluded:

"The far-reaching vision of NEPAD would not be enough to overcome the fears of political interference among investors."

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear today that the threat that Zimbabwe poses to NEPAD is a threat not only to that country, but to the well-being of the whole continent? What pressure will he bring to bear on President Gaddafi of Libya, who is apparently currently bankrolling Robert Mugabe? Libya needs its trade links with the European Union, and now is a good opportunity for the EU to act. On this occasion, will the Foreign Secretary take the lead on that issue?

I also seek clarification of the Government's stance on Zimbabwe's participation at the Commonwealth games. The Foreign Office has briefed the press that that is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation. The Foreign Secretary cannot duck this one; the United Kingdom has to make it clear that Zimbabwe is not welcome at the games. To allow its attendance would make a mockery of the decision to suspend to Zimbabwe from the Councils of the Commonwealth, and he must make his position clear today.

I have asked many questions, and the House expects answers to them, but I remind the House that, for several years now, we have been calling on the Government to act. They failed to act over the illegal farm occupations; they failed to act over the dubious elections in 2000; they failed to act after Abuja, despite the Foreign Secretary's protestations at that time; and Robert Mugabe had the last laugh at Abuja. All that time we called for the assets of Mugabe and his henchmen to be frozen; we called for travel bans; we called for suspension from the Commonwealth; and the Government told us that we were irresponsible.

We were told that all was well because the Government had an ethical foreign policy. Well, let me tell the House that history will record that this Government got it wrong, and it is about time that they admitted it. They now have time, belatedly, to get it right by following the suggestions that I have outlined. I repeat the call that I made in the House last Thursday: the time has come for the Government to stop talking and to start doing.

Let me run through the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions. First, he asked whether we recognise the legitimacy of the result—we do not—and what action we would take. Well, the action that we have taken is to call for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth and to achieve that. He also asked what other action the Government will take now. I shall underline the point that I made to him last week: this is not an issue on which there is serious division between either side of the House. That became evident during the course of those exchanges given the very constructive contributions made by virtually all the Conservative Back Benchers who spoke, some of whom were more willing than others to recognise that the previous Conservative Government's record was not one that was covered in glory. For example, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) spoke, rather eloquently, about the preceding Government's failure to take any effective action in the 1980s.

The right hon. Gentleman asks what action will be taken. We have taken the action that it has been necessary to take because of the illegitimacy of the Mugabe regime. That includes the sanctions to which I was able to get the EU to agree on 18 February.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about an international coalition. I have to say that that is exactly what we have been seeking to put together and have, indeed, put together. Again, I say gently to him that it would have been much more difficult for him to have achieved that action in the Commonwealth and almost impossible for him to have achieved that result in the EU, given the other approach that he and his Front-Bench colleagues take to international relations.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about diplomatic and other action, and he came close to asking whether we should break off diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Let me make the position clear. In 1979, the Government whom he supported decided—Lord Carrington announced this at the time in the other place and the announcement was repeated here—that in future Her Majesty's Government would recognise states, not particular Governments. We have followed that policy since then; it seemed sensible at the time, and it still is.

We have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe because of our concerns about the citizens of Zimbabwe and those of other countries and—I say this very specifically—well over 40,000 British citizens and dependants. I have received no representations whatever from the opposition, representatives of British citizens or from anybody else who cares about the future of Zimbabwe that we should either break off or reduce diplomatic relations. I judge that it would not be helpful to the people whom we care about or to democracy, were we to do so. If I receive representations from those quarters, of course I shall consider them and make their position known to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Commonwealth games. The decision formally is for the Commonwealth Games Federation. That is my view and the Government's view. Throughout we have sought to impose sanctions with adverse consequences on the people responsible for bringing Zimbabwe to this sorry pass. I have received no representations which suggest that the young people who are involved in sport in Zimbabwe are responsible for stuffing ballot boxes and murdering opposition opponents. If I receive such representations, of course we shall take full notice of them. Meanwhile, it is entirely right that the Commonwealth Games Federation should follow the examples of countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth, previously or currently, namely Pakistan and Fiji. It should draw a clear distinction between the sanctions that we are taking against the undemocratic and, in the case of Zimbabwe, violent forces and target those people and their actions, while making it crystal clear that we are on the side of people of democracy who want to celebrate the best in their country, which in this case includes sport.

Does the Foreign Secretary understand that welcome though the suspension is, for many of us it is overshadowed by an acute sense of disappointment that it became necessary and that Robert Mugabe would not respond to the moral authority of the Commonwealth and draw back from the actions that have ultimately precipitated the suspension? For many of us, welcome for the suspension is overshadowed by a profound anxiety for the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, both urban and rural, who now face the prospect of six years of ignominy and isolation, of corrupt military adventurism in the Congo, of economic mismanagement and even of food and energy shortages.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the decision taken by the troika establishes a new precedent for the Commonwealth and that it would be right now to consider the extent to which mechanisms of the Commonwealth should be adjusted so as to allow for suspension more easily if such circumstances were to arise in future? Some have considered that the proposals made by the high level review group in this regard were rather lacklustre. Is it not time for much more responsive mechanisms to be established?

On the Commonwealth games, in which I should declare an historical interest if nothing else, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that on two occasions during the Conservative Government there was a mixture between sport and politics? The consequence for the 1986 Commonwealth games was a substantial boycott and the success of the games hung in the balance. That was because a view was taken of the political attitudes of the then Government. An even more salutary example was the effort of Mrs. Thatcher to persuade British competitors not to compete in the Moscow Olympic games. It is fair to say that her efforts received rather mixed results.

Seb Coe won his gold.

As my hon. Friend says, Seb Coe won a gold, so those efforts did not permeate even the Conservative party, still less the country.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that the decision of the Commonwealth troika and therefore of the Commonwealth, although welcome in itself, in context casts an acute sense of disappointment at the fact that the sanctions are necessary.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about profound anxiety, and I should have responded to the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about Morgan Tsvangirai. We have not had to call in the high commissioner from Zimbabwe to explain what we think about the arrest and subsequent charging of Morgan Tsvangirai with treason. One deals with opponents in a democracy by argument, not by arrest and pursuit of them on trumped-up charges. If those charges are pursued by Robert Mugabe, the international consequences for his Government in terms of isolation and, I suspect, greater sanctions, will be considerable. We remain very concerned about the position of Morgan Tsvangirai and other members of the opposition, but above all about those who are suffering daily the most acute violence in that country.

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether I agree that there should be a new precedent to widen the circumstances in which the Commonwealth could take such action. Personally, I think that that should happen. To those who think that Zimbabwe was not bothered about the result, I say that for a very long time, Dr. Stan Mudenge, the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe, used to chair the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group That is one reason why no action could be taken against Zimbabwe for such a long time, and would not have been taken even if the skills of the right hon. Member for Devizes had been brought into play.

Once Dr. Mudenge had vacated the chair, he argued for years, like the good barrack-room lawyer that he is, that CMAG and the Commonwealth had no right to suspend any country from the Councils of the Commonwealth except where a democratic regime had been overthrown in a violent coup d'etat. We managed to overcome that, but it is one reason why he refused the use of CMAG to sort out a land deal, and why President Obasanjo had to create an equivalent of CMAG, which met in Abuja. It is also why the decision is in itself historic. We must ensure that better structures are put in place so that everyone who signed up to the ironically named Harare principles understands that they are not just words, but require commitment by Governments and Heads of Governments, and that action will follow if they are broken.

My right hon. Friend has taken a consistent, firm and principled attitude throughout and, with the troika, deserves congratulations on a result that helps to salvage and maintain the credibility of the Commonwealth. Will he say a little more about the one-year suspension? It sounds a little difficult because, after all, it would be reviewed in any event, and it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rerun of the election during that period. Indeed, the actions of the Mugabe Government since the election have been very negative.

As the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned, part of the tragedy is that all the grand declarations of President Mbeki and other leaders on African renaissance and NEPAD are undermined by a picture of ill-governance and maltreatment of the opposition. That means that it will be increasingly difficult for private investors in a highly competitive world to look to Africa and provide the renaissance, through NEPAD, which we support.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his initial comments, and I agree that Zimbabwe has already had a terrible effect on not just its own economy but that of all countries in southern Africa, and investor confidence throughout the continent. That is one more reason why I believe that the decision taken on Tuesday by the leaders of two of the most important countries in Africa is so important. It draws a line between those who subscribe to principles of democracy, as the leaders of South Africa and Nigeria of course do, and those who follow a different, violent and undemocratic path. I very much hope that, notwithstanding that, NEPAD and the determination by democratic Africa and the international community to help Africa to rebuild its prosperity will continue. No one should be in any doubt about the damage that President Mugabe has already done and could continue to do.

My right hon. Friend asked about the time period. The Committee stated in paragraph 8 of its conclusions that the suspension will be for one year with immediate effect and that the issue will be revisited in 12 months' time, having regard to progress in Zimbabwe based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I take that to mean that the suspension will continue unless the Harare principles have meanwhile started to be properly observed and there has been a positive report from the Commonwealth Secretary-General.

Although I of course welcome the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, that cannot be the end of the matter. Does the Secretary of State accept that we have a special interest as there are 40,000 UK passport holders in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the time has come for us to explore with other Commonwealth states how we can make Mr. Mugabe and his lieutenants personally accountable for the crimes that are being committed in Zimbabwe either by himself directly or by his lieutenants in his name?

Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the scale is different, Mr. Mugabe's policies of murder, arson, ethnic cleansing, intimidation and vote rigging have a great deal in common with those of Mr. Milosevic? Should we not explore ways in which Mr. Mugabe could be brought before a competent criminal court, so that if he is convicted, he spends his declining years not in Government house, to which he has no entitlement, but in premises that are equally secure but rather less accommodating?

I agree with the entirety of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. This is not the end of the matter, and we have a direct interest in what happens in Zimbabwe because at least 40,000 British citizens and their dependants are there. However, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that even were those 40,000 British citizens not there, our concern about the humanitarian and economic disaster would be exactly the same, because it is a concern without regard to race, colour or citizenship.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that we must be indivisible and universal in applying principles of human rights and international crimes. There is a difference between what Milosevic did and what has happened in Zimbabwe under the ZANU-PF regime, but it is only a matter of degree. One reason why I am profoundly committed to the establishment of the International Criminal Court is that if we are to avoid a repetition of what has happened in Zimbabwe, as well as other disasters, it is hugely important that leaders do not get themselves into a position whereby they believe that they are wholly immune from any possibility of real sanction against their person, as well as their property, for their actions.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach in leaving open matters such as humanitarian aid in connection with HIV projects and the position that he has taken on sport. There is clearly a distinction between the people of Zimbabwe and the regime that has forced itself upon them. We need to target the regime as strongly as possible while doing whatever we can to assist the people. I commend that general approach to my right hon. Friend in respect of some of his other briefs.

I cannot think what my hon. Friend is talking about.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. All along, President Mugabe set a trap into which he wanted the United Kingdom to fall—namely, that we would target black Zimbabweans on a blunderbuss basis so that he would be able credibly to claim that it was a case of white versus black. So far, we have avoided that trap, and we must continue to do so.

Although I warmly welcome the decision of the troika, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, to suspend ZANU-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth's counsels for 12 months, does the Secretary of State accept that the recognition of President Mugabe by President Mbeki of South Africa undermines the influence of that decision and sends out quite the wrong messages?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the deep concern of member states throughout the Commonwealth and hon. Members on both sides of House about the safety of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, and other opponents of President Mugabe, against whom he is taking brutal action in complete disregard of the views of the world?

Bearing in mind that on 6 March the Prime Minister expressed concern and said that he would consider the entry of Zimbabwe into the Commonwealth games in light of the outcome of the elections, does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Zimbabwe competes in the Commonwealth games, the impact of the decision on the people of Zimbabwe will be lessened? I am visiting all the sites of the Commonwealth games tomorrow.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and the House needs to be grateful to him for the consistent position that he has adopted on Zimbabwe and for his interest in the country over many years.

I will put more details before the House as soon as I receive them, but I do not think that more should be read into the South African Government's decision on recognition than could be read into the fact that, for reasons that I have explained, we recognise states that still have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. We cannot take away from President Mbeki the fact that as a member of the troika that met on Tuesday, he, with the other two members, decided on behalf of the 54 members of the Commonwealth to take the action, which is unprecedented in the circumstances, to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. For that, President Mbeki. President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard ought to he applauded.

On the Commonwealth games, the hon. Gentleman put his point rather gently, but I say to him that that is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation, not for me. I have given my opinion to the House. Earlier examples in which people have sought to make Government decisions and impose them on games federations have not been particularly successful because such decisions appear to be punitive to innocent people, namely sports people, rather than to the Government concerned.

The Foreign Secretary must be right to state that the welcome suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth is not the end of the matter. May I urge him to give us an undertaking that he will regularly return to the Dispatch Box in the next few months to make statements and initiate debates? The House can then show, first, that it is totally united against the Mugabe regime; secondly, that we will not stand idly by if opposition leaders are persecuted by a flawed judiciary; and thirdly, that we in no way recognise the corrupt election that has just taken place.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for my failure to answer his question about Morgan Tsvangirai. We will do everything that we can in difficult circumstances to help ensure the safety of all those who have been unjustifiably accused of crimes, including Mr. Tsvangirai, although the hon. Gentleman will understand the limitations of what we can do in practice because of the nature of the Mugabe regime.

I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that I have sought to keep the House fully informed at every stage, and I will continue to do so.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the responsible decision by Nigeria and South Africa will give a welcome boost to the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Will he, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister be championing NEPAD at the G8 and in other forums?

I agree that the decision is a welcome boost to NEPAD, and it would have been have really serious for NEPAD if the decision had gone the other way. No two people are more committed to NEPAD's success than my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Prime Minister has been in the lead on the matter throughout all the discussions in the G8, and I know that he is utterly determined to pursue NEPAD to the benefit of the whole of Africa when the G8 meets later this year.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the tactics employed by Mr. Mugabe before, during and after the election campaign resemble nothing so closely as the tactics employed by fascists in the 1920s in Italy, and by the Nazis in the 1930s in Germany? Given that some Opposition Members have been consistent supporters of the International Criminal Court, will he give an undertaking that the fate that befalls Mr. Mugabe when that court is up and running will be analogous to the fate that befell the Nazis in 1945 at Nuremberg? Will he give a specific undertaking that the Government will initiate the appropriate proceedings?

Finally, may I gently and without rancour say to the right hon. Gentleman that it ill-behoves a Labour Foreign Secretary and a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman to lecture the Conservatives on the importance of keeping sport and politics separate when—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have to be careful about the direct comparisons we make, for the reasons cited by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It is a question of degree. Do I believe that Mugabe and his people are probably guilty of crimes that should come before the International Criminal Court? Yes. Should they be taken before the court? Yes. Should they be punished appropriately? Yes.

Will the Foreign Secretary be more specific about his objectives regarding Mugabe himself? Is it an objective that he be removed from office, that he resign, or that there be new, free and fair elections in which Mugabe would either be free to take part, or not be allowed to take part? Will he give us some idea of the time scale of his policy? He has made it clear that we are in for a long haul, but he will understand the House's desire to be able to judge the effectiveness of his policy. Does he believe that that will be possible in six months, 12 months, two years—or when?

I think that I speak for the whole House when I say that if I had the means, I would want to ensure that President Mugabe resigns and accepts that he stole the election, and that free and fair, non-violent elections, properly monitored and observed, take place. However, as long as Mugabe is where he is, that will not happen, which is why we have to resort to the measures I have announced, which are necessary in the circumstances, but unwelcome given the context.

As for the time scale, it is important that the House neither underestimates nor overestimates what we as a country and a Government can do. I cannot say with any certainty how long it will take to remove Mugabe and his ZANU-PF henchmen from power. That is ultimately in the hands, not of us or the international community, but of the people of Zimbabwe, influenced by the circumstances there.

Of one thing I am certain, knowing about all the other awful regimes around the world. Regimes that are undemocratic, violent and based on stolen elections are inherently unstable, and therefore only temporary. Although a difficult and dark period lies immediately ahead, I believe that ultimately the future of the people of Zimbabwe will be far better.

Our manifesto gave a commitment on hunting with hounds, stating that:

"we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view.

We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue."

I have been given the responsibility of leading that enabling process. In reaching my decision on how to proceed, I have listened carefully to what has been said in the debates. The votes this week leave the two Houses diametrically opposed—indeed, I have rarely seen an issue on which the divisions have been greater. It is precisely for that reason that it is right to see how it can be resolved with as much agreement as possible.

We want to respect all views, but that must start with respect for the strength with which the Commons made its views clear on Monday. I promise to engage with everyone who has an interest in this issue to make the legislation practical and robust. I promise to bring to the House of Commons a Bill that will deal with this issue effectively once and for all, and that will make good law. I earnestly hope that we can achieve that by finding as much common ground as possible. I propose a process of consultation on the practical issues of detail with a wide variety of interested parties. That consultation period will last no more than six months, including work on drafting a new Bill.

We promised in our manifesto that this issue would be resolved. Should there be no way through, and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinised and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act, which of course would be a matter for this House. [Interruption.]

Order.

I ask Conservative Members to listen carefully to what is being said. The Government would prefer the Bill to proceed by debate and through a search for common ground wherever possible, with conflict tempered by tolerance.

Where is the tolerance?

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the word "tolerance". I suggest that he listen.

If that process is frustrated and the Bill rejected, we would reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible to this House. It would then be for this House and its procedures and for Mr. Speaker to determine whether the Parliament Act should apply. However, the reason for re-engaging in a process to try to achieve wider agreement is precisely that we recognise that there are legitimate concerns in the countryside about pest control, land management and other practicalities, and we want to address those issues in the Bill. Those concerns were raised both in this House and in the other place.

I reiterate our manifesto commitment that

"we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting."

I also want to stress to everyone in the countryside that hunting is at the margins of the real debate about the priorities that we set out in the rural White Paper, which are to ensure that people in the countryside get access to good public services, proper investment, sound environmental policies and sustainable development.

On the content of the Bill itself, I believe that some common ground can best he found by focusing on two general principles. The report by Lord Burns on hunting with dogs examined in great detail the principles of cruelty and utility. We propose to frame legislation that prohibits activity based on those two principles rather than simply setting out a list of activities to be banned.

The Burns report did not provide a route map, however. That is why further thought should be given in applying these principles, and that is what I shall be doing over the next few weeks.

I am sure that the House will have noted the very clear assurances that I have given today about timing and outcome, and about the engagement of those campaigning for a ban on hunting, of Members of this House, and of those involved in land management. I recognise that this is a difficult issue, especially as we all know that there are other pressing matters, such as legislation on crime, health and education, that also demand our attention. We must deliver on our central promises on reform and investment in our public services.

I ask the House to trust me to deliver, and to join me in a process that is guaranteed to achieve an outcome as soon as possible. I look forward to engaging with colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place. The process that I am setting out today will ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to resolve this issue during the lifetime of this Parliament.

I thank the Minister for letting me have sight of his statement this afternoon. I had tremendous difficulties with my computer at the weekend, and I understand that he had similar difficulties today. I received the statement hot off the press only a few minutes ago, therefore. However, I am grateful at least for the attempt to get it to me in good time. The proposals that the Minister has announced today, which will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament by the use of the Parliament Act if necessary, say very little and shed very little light on how the Government see the way forward, especially after two full days of debate this week.

The proposals are most certainly not a middle way. However, in their small print, they show the way in which the Minister proposes to curtail the freedoms enjoyed by generations of British people. Can the Minister take powers, on a whim, to make regulations under the new "necessity" test, in the Burns report, of "cruelty and utility"—"vermin control"—which will, at a stroke, maim hunting as we have known it, except for a few foot packs in some upland areas? Hunting would then only be tolerated under licence, with rights of appeal given to anti-hunt organisations if a licence were granted.

The devil will, as ever, be in the detail. When will we see precisely what regulatory powers are planned? How will they be implemented, and by what means? With whom will the Minister consult? How will he reassure the countryside that he is not just buying time? Many believe that the decisions are already taken, as The Times today makes clear. Will he confirm that, in addition to the list of consultees on page 3, he will fully consult those who support field and country sports and foxhunting in particular? How will he ensure that the consultation focuses on other real issues such as species management, conservation and employment?

It is obvious to one and all in the House and elsewhere that the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place of their own making. They are caught by their own Back Benchers, who are deeply unhappy about the failure of Government policy, and by the fear of a countryside march of up to 1 million people joining together in comradeship and common purpose, as they did before. The issue is not animal cruelty; it never was. It is about the settling of old scores.

The message must go out the length and breadth of this land: we must fight for our country traditions and values. That fight for freedom and liberty begins today.

It is very disappointing that the Conservative response has been so narrow and petty. It is clear that Opposition Front-Bench Members are determined to create division and not to help a process that will create good legislation. It is the process of creating good legislation that is important—[Interruption.] I invite Opposition Members to stop gnashing their teeth, and to listen to what I am saying in response to serious points made by the hon. Lady—her contribution included serious points among its scattering of prejudice.

We seek to introduce legislation based on principles. Legislation often bans things—frequently, it involves a curtailment of liberty—and the House must ensure that that is done carefully, judiciously and appropriately. Surely that is the purpose of writing good legislation. It is ludicrous of the hon. Lady to suggest, in her words, that I intend to take powers "on a whim". The House will decide exactly what legislation is passed. My responsibility is to help that process and to enable us to have good law.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is right to say that the devil is in the detail, which is why I have announced a process in which the detail and the practicalities will be discussed. She asked for the sort of information appropriate to a Second Reading debate, after the publication of a Bill. As I indicated, we are starting a process. I assure the hon. Lady that consultation will be open to anyone.

I am not sure what it says on page 3 of The Times, as I have not read it today—

I was referring to page 3 of the statement.

I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. She was speaking about The Times, so I thought that that was the organ to which her pagination applied. I know what is in my statement; it is The Times that I have not read.

I can tell the hon. Member for Congleton that the consultation process will be very open. Certainly, people who engage in hunting will be part of the process, and they will be fully involved. Indeed, I met representatives from the campaign for hunting yesterday. My door has been kept open to that organisation, as it has to other bodies with an interest in the matter. I had friendly and useful exchanges with them, because I am engaged in a process of dialogue.

The hon. Member for Congleton spoke about marches. I do not recall any Conservative Government being swayed by marches of any sort, whereas this Government do take notice of strong opinion, regardless of whether it is expressed by demonstration or by the process of consultation. We respect people's freedom to protest, but I ask those who consider protesting about the issues involved in this matter to recognise that they are being invited to take part in a process. They will be listened to and they will have an opportunity to influence the legislative proposals that come before the House. That seems to be the biggest difference between Government and Opposition.

rose—

Order. Many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. It would be extremely helpful. Therefore, if hon. Members raised only one point with the Minister.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today. My question will no doubt be put to him by people outside the House. If, after the process outlined today, the House of Commons once again votes to ban cruel and unnecessary sports such as lowland fox hunting, and if the House of Lords rejects that view, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government use the Parliament Act to allow this House to have its say?

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. In essence, he asks whether the Government would apply the Parliament Act. However, use of the Parliament Act is a matter for the House. As I made clear, that process would be enabled by the Government if it became necessary, but we very much hope that the process will be one of engagement, and of improvement of any legislation that is brought forward. Our preference is that the Parliament Act will not be needed. I hope that that will be the case, but my hon. Friend is right to understand that the Government would enable use of the Parliament Act, if necessary. In that way, the House of Commons will be able to decide the matter.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has made an early statement to the House, following the debates in both Houses earlier this week. Since 1997, Parliament has spent more than 130 hours discussing hunting. The Minister is therefore right to say that we need to reach a conclusion "once and for all", to use the words in his statement. However, I notice that the process that he has set out will take another 12 months to complete.

Does not the Minister's statement take us back to square one, in that all options are open again? The Minister has changed the way in which matters will be dealt with. Rightly, he has moved away from discussing particular bans, and has proposed that we look at questions of cruelty and utility. Will he accept, however, that the definition of cruelty is subjective, and that hon. Members of all parties will reach different conclusions about it? How does he intend to reconcile subjective views of that nature?

Will the Minister accept that his statement could be interpreted by some as code for a sort of middle way solution, which will stop hare coursing but allow some foxhunting to continue? That would be in line with the briefings that senior people in Government gave to the press last weekend.

Finally, it may be admirable to try to bridge the unbridgeable—and I applaud the Minister's attempt—but I hope that he will clarify his intentions, in light of the question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill will be subject to a free vote? Will he also ensure that, if the House of Commons votes for a form of legislation that bans all foxhunting and hunting with dogs, he will enable the Parliament Act to be used, and that the will of the Commons will triumph?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a series of interesting questions. The Government are promoting discussion and debate. We are taking a little time to try to seek agreement and to achieve as much common ground as possible.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is right to say that my statement takes us back to the beginning. I explained the process that will be undertaken, and the principles on which it is based, and I suggested that what we need to discuss are the practicalities. For those reasons, therefore, my statement moves matters forward.

The hon. Member for Lewes said that the definition of cruelty is subjective. I am sure that there will be much discussion of that when we come to scrutinise the legislation, but the law is already clear that cruelty is defined as that which causes unnecessary suffering. In practice, the concept is used in the courts in a variety of ways, so I do not think that there is the uncertainty about meaning that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposals did not look a little like the middle way. I assure him that this is not the middle way. He also referred to briefings from elsewhere in Government, but I know of no such briefings. I assure him that the only authoritative briefings on this issue come from me. If he has any doubts about anything that he hears and which is ascribed to someone else in Government, the hon. Gentleman should give me a call and I will put him right.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the question of hunting will continue to be dealt with on a free vote. I can confirm that it will. His final question referred to the nature of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the Parliament Act is enabled to allow the House of Commons to come to decisions. The use of the Parliament Act is a matter for the House of Commons. We will not stand in the way of that. We will enable the process if it is needed, but I again make it clear that I am dealing with that point now so that we can put it to one side and ensure that we do not spend ages discussing whether the Parliament Act will be used. We should prefer it if the Parliament Act were not used, as we want to deal with the matter by seeking common ground, through debate and through the normal processes of this House and the other place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had hoped to receive from him today a precise statement that Monday's decision by the House of Commons that a full ban on all forms of hunting with dogs would be introduced as a substantive Bill as soon as possible? However, that is not what we heard.

My right hon. Friend asks us to trust him. I certainly trust him, as I have a high personal regard for him. In the end, however, the only thing that I will trust is a Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a very clear answer to the question that I am about to ask him. His answer will govern my approach to this matter and—for what it is worth—to other matters that arise in this House for the remainder of this Parliament.

Let us assume that, after the consultation period, the Government introduce a Bill that contains some exceptions, and that the House of Commons on a free vote decides to remove all those exceptions and to impose a complete ban on all forms of hunting with dogs. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend give me the clear assurance that that would be the Bill for which the Parliament Act would be invoked?

First, I am aware of my right hon. Friend's preference. No one who has heard him speak on the matter could be in the slightest doubt about what he wants to happen. However, I hope that the promise that what he called a substantive Bill would be introduced as soon as possible will encourage him. I have suggested a specific time scale for that, and again I hope that he will accept that the intention is to provide certainty, for him and for the rest of the House.

I am absolutely clear that if the Government introduce a Bill that is amended in the House of Commons, our promise in relation to allowing the Parliament Act to obtain will apply. It would be a matter for the Commons. I think I cannot underline enough the important words "This would be a matter for the House of Commons".

I am sure that when the Minister first entered the House he, like me, considered protecting the rights and freedoms of minorities one of its most important functions. On that basis, we in the House have for many years continued to tolerate things of which, individually or collectively, we disapprove. Is it not a very sad day for the Minister and the House when he invites us to abandon that long-established principle?

There are many minorities whose freedom of action is curtailed in a variety of ways because the House has decided through history that a particular thing should be banned. That applies whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to bear-baiting, cockfighting or similar activities relating to animals, or to various other activities that are regarded as offences because one person's ability to exercise his or her freedom of action impinges on the rights and obligations of others. I am afraid that, by simply referring to the freedom of the individual, the hon. Gentleman is not helping us to arrive at appropriate and robust legislation.

Yes, I believe entirely that it is the responsibility of a majority to protect the rights and, freedoms of individuals; but it must be done in a manner that also ensures that where there is a principle that should not be offended against, that principle is upheld.

My right hon. Friend is a very reasonable man. He has talked a good deal about the need for discussion and debate. May I express the hope that there will not be too much discussion and debate? After all, we have had rather a lot of that already. What we seek is a watertight Bill, and what I seek from the Minister today is an assurance that what will result at the end of this is not a Bill leading to years of litigation, with judges driving a coach and horses through the various definitions in the Bill, followed by demands for yet another Bill. We must bring this matter to an end; the will of Parliament must prevail.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important to produce a Bill that is effective and watertight, and will not lead to a mass of litigation. I assure him that I am not in the business of increasing the incomes of lawyers, or the amount of activity in the courts. I will seek to apply the principle that he has put to us to the drafting of the legislation.

My hon. Friend says that there has been enough discussion and debate. I suspect that in embarking on this process the person I am condemning to the greatest quantity of discussion and debate is myself, in listening mode but also in discussion mode, trying to tease out the best way of implementing the legislation. I shall try to live up to the term that my hon. Friend used in his vicious attack, and continue to be a reasonable man.

Does the Minister accept that by himself voting against the middle way the other night, he demonstrated that he was not prepared to listen? Does he also accept that to millions in the country at large, and to all who love hunting and the countryside, the Government's sense of priorities is astonishing and impossible to understand? Finally, let me tell him this: the countryside will fight for liberty, livelihood and freedom. What he proposes does indeed mark a black day for freedom in this country.

The hon. Gentleman makes a rather populist point. Most people whom I meet in the countryside would set as priorities for action by the Government the very actions to which we have given priority—the revival of the economy in rural areas, encouraging communities in rural areas, looking at the future of food and farming and promoting tourism in rural areas. They would expect us to give priority to issues that affect people's everyday lives in rural areas, such as education, health and transport, in which we have invested massively more than the Conservative Government.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the way in which I voted on Monday had somehow compromised my role. This issue has been before the House on a free vote on numerous occasions. It would be a very odd Member of Parliament who had not reached a conclusion on questions such as those that were before us on Monday; it would be a very odd Member of Parliament who failed to vote on them.

I have always been absolutely straight and honest with people I have met—including members of the campaign for hunting—to ensure that they know which way I have voted on the matter over the years. I have also made it absolutely clear to them, and to every group, that I have been given a separate role by the Prime Minister, which is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. I shall do the job as objectively as I can: having personal opinions takes away none of my responsibility for enabling that process.

I welcome the preparedness to invoke the Parliament Act, should that be needed, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it could not be invoked in the next Session with a new Bill, and that the process would therefore probably take a further year? Will he also confirm that the Government have moved from a position of neutrality—of merely facilitating Parliament's arrival at a conclusion based on one of the three options—to the undertaking of a new process to secure a Bill based on common ground? Has he any idea what that common ground would be?

My hon. Friend is right: the process will take a little longer by the means I have proposed today than by the means of applying the Parliament Act to the previous Bill. That, however, is a price that we consider worth paying to try to avoid the continuing danger of a stalemate between the two Houses, and to find as much common ground as possible between us and those who feel strongly about these issues, both in this House and outside.

My hon. Friend asked whether the Government had moved. The Government have not moved from being neutral on the issue, but we have accepted a responsibility that we gave ourselves in our manifesto before the general election—a responsibility for enabling Parliament to reach a conclusion. That is the responsibility I have taken on in trying to find the best possible legislation in order to reach the best possible conclusion. I see that as a role for enabling Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my regret that discussions on this important issue should be couched in terms of class warfare? Does he accept that many of us who have been involved in this and other campaigns have a long record of fighting for the welfare of animals? Does he find it remotely likely that when the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mounted a campaign to protect tortured bears in China, he was declaring class warfare on the communist regime there?

In every free vote since 1987, has it not been standard practice for the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to give their personal views and then to make clear that they nevertheless have a duty to the House? Finally, is not the method of resolving the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has announced just a recipe for yet more delay, and for allowing the issue to run up and down the parliamentary system when we should be discussing other issues? Should the matter not now be brought to a firm conclusion? The House has shown its view; we are the democratically elected body.

I can agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Lady said. I certainly share her regret that the issue should be debated in terms of class warfare, and I am sure that members of her own Front Bench will have heard her injunction. I will leave it to her to debate issues with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but I am sure that any debate of that kind would be worth listening to, given two such robust participants.

I endorse the right hon. Lady's point about the difference between a personal view and a Minister's responsibility to the House. As a shadow Minister, I always took the view that a similar need exists to distinguish between personal responsibilities and one's responsibility to the House in trying to enable good legislation. On several occasions when I was in opposition, contributions and discussions—sometimes in the House, sometimes outside it—helped the Government to improve legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has listened to this exchange.

May I welcome the fact that the Minister has not introduced a Bill today to ban hunting with dogs? That shows that the many people in the countryside who think that we should not spend huge amounts of time on this issue are being listened to, and that a way exists to satisfy most sensible people. Do the Government have a view on cruelty, and does the Minister have a view on what Lord Burns himself said in the House of Lords? He said:

"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying"—

in the Burns report—

"that hunting is cruel …The short answer to that question is no."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]

What is the Government's view on the Burns report?

My hon. Friend refers to comments made in another place, rather than to the report itself. One problem is that many people pick out a particular paragraph from the Burns report and use it to justify the position that they adopted before reading it. I take the view that it is important for this House to be able to deal with cruelty in respect of hunting with dogs—that is what the issue is all about. We should do so by referring to the useful work undertaken by Lord Burns, and to the practicalities that I referred to in my statement. That is the subject for consultation in the next few weeks, and that process will certainly be interesting. However, it will be informed by the contents of the Burns report.

Was not the Parliament Act designed to allow the House of Commons to get its way only when the House of Lords thwarts a specific and detailed legislative commitment in a general election manifesto? The Labour party's last manifesto makes no such specific commitment to a ban; instead, deliberately chosen, mealy-mouthed, ambiguous words are used. Is it not a complete abuse of the Parliament Act, therefore, to try to invoke it in this case, or can the Minister cite a precedent for its being used for a non-manifesto or non-budgetary issue?

The hon. Gentleman hangs together several errors and imprecisions. The point is that, should the two Houses reach an impasse, we will enable the Commons to have its way, but I have made it clear time and again that we hope that the process will avoid that outcome. A very precise manifesto commitment was made to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the legislation. The hon. Gentleman should examine that precise commitment and recognise that it is on that authority that the House of Commons is able to proceed. However, if possible we want to achieve maximum common ground for all who engage in the debate. That is as much an offer—as it were—to the House of Lords as an illustration of what would happen should such an impasse arise.

The comments of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) have already made clear to my right hon. Friend the impossibility of securing consensus in any form. He pointed out in his statement that the two Houses are diametrically opposed. Where can common ground be found? There is no common ground. I do not know why he wants to spend six months chasing shadows. A clash is obviously coming between this House and the House of Lords, so he ought to face up to that fact. To use some of the hon. Lady's rhetoric, he might as well cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.

I am not sure that I should take much notice of that encouragement. As my hon. Friend knows, by nature I am an optimist. He will also know that I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, so I seek wherever possible to co-operate and work with others. I am even open to co-operating with Opposition Front Benchers and other Conservative Members—if they will engage in the process, rather than simply writing it off at the outset. Similarly, many in the other place—some of whom disagree passionately with the views of people such as my hon. Friend—nevertheless say, "Let us talk. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, so let us examine the options and see where they take us. Let us discuss the practicalities." I very much hope that matters will proceed in that way.

May I give a cautious welcome to what the Minister said today, particularly on the process and the new twin principles of utility and cruelty? I hope that he will introduce a Bill that is genuinely based on those twin principles and will not approach countryside activities in a prejudiced way. Does he acknowledge that the difference in votes cast in this House and in the other place reflects a wider disagreement in society about the way in which the issue needs to be addressed? Within the six-month period he has granted himself, he needs to engage in that wider public debate. We are not the only people who have something to say on hunting and cruelty.

In that context, he will have received a letter from Glyn Davies, Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in the National Assembly for Wales. It asks him specifically to take into account more than 900 submissions to the committee on hunting in Wales, and further to take into account in the legislative process the Committee's deliberations on the best way forward for hunting in Wales, which is characterised by upland areas. Will he undertake to do that?

I am happy to respond positively to each of those three points. First, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are seeking to legislate through the application of principles. I have outlined those principles, it is clear that he understood my comments, and that is the way forward. Secondly, he is also right to say it is not just a question of views in this House and the other place. There is wider disagreement in society—and in the countryside—and it is right that we engage with people outside this House. He will know that I have met a wide variety of groups in England and Wales that wish to make representations on the issue, and I shall continue to do so. Thirdly, it is certainly right to take into account views from Wales, including views expressed by the National Assembly for Wales and its Members. I have not seen the letter to which he refers, but I would expect to be able to respond positively to it.