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

I am pleased to announce that we will have a busy week after the Whitsun recess. The business is as follows:

MONDAY 10 JUNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.

WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.

THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill.

FRIDAY 14 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be: MONDAY 17 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill.

TUESDAY 18 JUNE—There will be a debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 19 JuNE—I should like to advise the House that subject to receiving a message from the other place, the day will consist of a half-day Opposition debate until 7 o'clock, followed by a motion to concur with their Lordships on the establishment of a Joint Committee on the House of Lords.

THURSDAY 20 JUNE—There will be a debate on Energy: Towards 2050, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 21 JUNE—Private Member's Bills.

The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 18 June 2002, there will be a debate relating to authorisation of human and veterinary medicines in European Standing Committee C.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Tuesday 18 June 2002:European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: 13361/01; 14591/01: Authorisation of human and veterinary medicines; 6240/02; Authorisation of traditional herbal medicinal products. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xii and HC 152-xxiii (2000–01)].

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us that statement. Given his legendary ability to read documents at high speed and digest every detail of their content, may I assume that he has thoroughly absorbed document HC 844, issued by the parliamentary ombudsman? Assuming that he has, I will not need to remind him of its contents. However, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give one quotation from the report—although I could give many. On page 16, paragraph 4.13, the ombudsman says:

"Throughout this part of my investigation I had received no direct communication from the Cabinet Office… they appeared to be withholding papers, which they readily acknowledged existed, from my investigation. I was deeply concerned at this development. Such a refusal strikes at the very heart of my Office's function. Together with the lack of co-operation from the Home Office it made it impossible for me to corroborate the account contained in Sir Anthony's report with respect to the information sought by Mr. M. Given this attitude, which had effectively made my investigation unsustainable, I found myself in the position of being quite unable to confirm"—

and so on.

That goes to the heart of the Government's repeated claims that they are in favour of freedom of information, open government, transparency and clarity. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for an urgent debate to be held on the matter, because what the ombudsman says about the Government is very serious indeed? He is making serious allegations about the attitude of Ministers—and, I am sad to say, the officials under their control—to the whole process of investigation. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that the matter merits urgent attention by the House, because it also goes to the heart of the relationship between the House and the Government. I hope that we shall receive his assurances on that subject.

May I remind the Leader of the House of what the Prime Minister said yesterday in reply to a brief exchange? Asked whether he agreed

"with the former membership secretary in his own constituency that the Labour party has ceased to become a democratic movement and has become a centralised mail order business",

the Prime Minister replied, rather typically:

"I do not believe that he"—

that is, the former membership secretary of the Sedgefield constituency—

"would have said that at all."—[Official Report, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 291–92.]

Will the Leader of the House therefore tell us whether a journal called Renewal exists, or whether he is aware of it? If it does exist, can he confirm whether it said—this is allegedly a quote from Renewal—that the Labour party had been

"replaced by mail order politics, where everything was run from the centre"?

I raise that question because yesterday the Prime Minister stated that he did not believe the person concerned would have said that, but those words are apparently a direct quotation from that individual. In order to protect his Prime Minister, surely the Leader of the House has to make a statement as early as possible to clarify whether the Prime Minister knows about that, whether the individual said those words or whether the Prime Minister, regrettably, was unable to clarify the truth of the matter to the House.

On another matter, Lord Levy is described in a newspaper today as

"an invaluable one-man money-raising machine."

I would call Lord Levy Tony's No. 1 crony—but no matter how one characterises him, is the Leader of the House satisfied that it is credible that a committee of six people, which includes Lord Levy, can vet donations to the Labour party? That is directly connected with Ministers' oft-repeated boasts that the Labour party is clean and above board with regard to donations and financial contributions.

We need to know whether the poachers and gamekeepers are indistinguishable, and whether the Labour party is serious, as it claims, about vetting its donations. Surely the Leader of the House, with his reputation for integrity, wants to clear that up. Can we have a brief statement from the Government about the relationship between donations to the Labour party, the committee that has been set up, and Lord Levy's role in that committee?

Yesterday I made a speech in which I suggested that if we want to restore the respect of the public for Parliament, we should try to rise above our tribal instincts. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes it terribly difficult for me rise above my tribal instincts, and I think that today I will fail miserably.

I have had an opportunity to study the ombudsman's report; I took it off the web this morning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has disdain for anything that smacks of the web or the internet, but I recommend it to him as an easy and convenient way of getting access to public documents. As he has quoted paragraph 4.13, I refer him to paragraph 4.20, where he will find that the ombudsman states that he found

"very little in the way of documentation"—

Exactly.

On the contrary, the ombudsman had access to all the documents in the Cabinet Office. I concede that there was a delay, for which the Cabinet Office apologised. However, he did gain access to the documents. He sets out in paragraph 4.19 and 4.18 that he saw all there was to see, and found that very little documentation had been delayed.

The ombudsman's conclusion was precisely the same as the conclusion reached by Sir Anthony Hammond. Indeed, he explicitly said that he reached the same conclusion. I see no point in wasting the time of the House in examining further a matter that has been exhaustively examined by Sir Anthony Hammond, and on which the ombudsman has reached the same conclusion. Had the conclusion been different, there might have been a point to the right hon. Gentleman's question, but as the conclusion is the same, there is no reason why the House should waste its effort and time on that.

As for the other matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I regret to say that I have not recently had an opportunity to hold discussions with the former membership secretary of the Prime Minister's constituency party. I am aware of Renewal. As the right hon. Gentleman is also aware of it, he may know that it recently carried a very interesting speech by myself, which it reprinted as an article.

Renewal is one of the many examples of vigorous, open, intellectual and democratic debate in the labour movement. I would have more respect for the right hon. Gentleman's concern about democracy in the Labour party if he did something about democracy in the Conservative party. For instance, perhaps he should respond to the demand of Conservative activists that they should elect officers within their party, as we elect officers in the Labour party.

I have told the House before that I believe that Lord Levy has played a valuable and useful role in British foreign policy. During my time as Foreign Secretary, I found him very valuable in making sure that we had access in the middle east, and that we were able to get our message across. I regret very much the fact that his being engaged in trying to find a way forward in an area of great tension, where there is the potential for a great explosion, is constantly run down by the media and by the Conservative party.

As for the vetting of donations, I think it entirely healthy and proper that we should set up a committee—and be open about the membership of that committee—to consider the implications of any donation that we take. I wish that the Conservative party would now—finally—tell us from whom it took donations when the Conservatives were in office. The Conservatives can do it—I presume that they have not burnt the files, so they are somewhere in central office. The only donations they ever owned up to were those that they were obliged to disclose after we laid a legal requirement on them.

Ask the ombudsman.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I may be getting tribal again, but perhaps I should encourage the ombudsman to make an inquiry at central office and see just how long the delay is before the Conservatives finally tell us from what companies and what countries they took money when they were the Government of Great Britain.

May I express my thanks to the Leader of the House for giving us a second day on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—time that we requested and others agreed was necessary? In the light of recent developments, it is extremely important that we discuss those issues, especially those that were not covered in Committee.

While I am in a grateful mood, may I also thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for giving added publicity to my question to the Prime Minister yesterday? I am very grateful.

I read with great interest and welcome the speech that the Leader of the House made to the Hansard Society last night, but does he agree that the House must find better ways to discuss urgent and topical issues more thoroughly? Let me give two examples. First, there is the funding of democracy and political parties, which has just been mentioned. The Prime Minister goes on television to talk about it, the chairman of the Labour party talks about it, two prominent Conservative MPs were talking about it yesterday—even the CBI is now talking about state funding of political parties. When will the Government give the House time to debate that issue properly?

Secondly, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the adjudication by the pensions appeal tribunal yesterday in the case of a gentleman who served this country well in the Gulf and now suffers from Gulf war syndrome. The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest as a long-time member of the Royal British Legion, which is concerned about the matter. Does he realise that the report in today's Daily Express, which I assume is now required Government reading, given that it is clearly their favourite newspaper, not only refers to the pay-out announced for Mr. Shaun Rusting, but states that his claim was adjusted—I think that is the best way to put it—by the Ministry of Defence so that it would not refer specifically to Gulf war syndrome and so open the door for other applicants? May we have an urgent statement from the MOD, not only about that adjudication, but about the way in which the MOD appears to have fiddled it?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the arrangements for the Report stage the week after the Whitsun recess. In the light of the representations that were made, it was right to ensure that there was adequate time for the remaining stages of that Bill. On a number of occasions since the general election the Government have listened to representations about remaining stages and provided the House with adequate time to explore important issues. We regard the Bill as a very important one, which deals with a serious issue.

I also appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about my speech yesterday. I fully agree with him about the importance of making sure that our proceedings are topical and deal with the public interest. I look forward to the forthcoming report from the Select Committee on Procedure, which I hope will enable us to shorten the period of notice for oral questions and thereby ensure greater topicality in those that come before the House.

I cannot promise a debate on party funding because, as the hon. Gentleman will have observed, we have a crowded schedule at this time of year. My impression is that there is a lively debate going on about party funding, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that no step can be taken in respect of party funding without a decision of the House, and therefore a debate in the House.

I am aware of the pensions appeal tribunal's judgment with regard to Gulf war syndrome. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very recent judgment, and it is right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider it carefully and respond to it in due course. However, the hon. Gentleman can take it as read that we take what has been said by the tribunal extremely seriously.

My right hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister is making an important speech today about science and research. He will know also that the spin-off from science and research in universities in the north-east will be crucial to the future prosperity of the north-east. Can we have a debate on this issue soon—although preferably not next week—so that we can explore the best ways of improving job creation by our universities?

I think that my right hon. Friend carried the House with him when he suggested that any debate that we may have should not take place next week. I very much welcome the Prime Minister's decision to give a major speech on science, research and technology. Sometimes, because of the press pressures on us and the agenda on the front pages, we overlook what are the fundamentally important and strategically significant issues in our nation, and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen to highlight one of those strategic questions. My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is a forthcoming debate in Westminster Hall on the report by the Committee on Science and Technology, when I am sure many of these points can be aired.

I hope that the Procedure Committee will not disappoint the Leader of the House when it produces its report on parliamentary questions, but my question to him is somewhat different. Although I strongly regret the decision of the House 10 days ago to reject the Modernisation Committee's proposals for a Committee of Nomination for appointments to Select Committees, I believe that the House could well return to the matter at a later date, no doubt on the initiative of the Liaison Committee. However, the debate 10 days ago also concerned proposals for increased facilities and resources for Select Committees. Is the Leader of the House in a position yet to indicate when he may make a statement about those additional facilities and resources to enable Select Committees to do the vital job that they perform for the House of Commons?

I share the hon. Gentleman's regret. I must say that I was intrigued by the fact that 90 Conservative Members voted against the proposal, thereby reinforcing the existing powers of the Government Whips. No doubt they have their own reasons for having supported the Government Whips—and some day we may be able to fathom them. In the meantime, I repeat that although I regret the outcome, as Leader of the House I have to respect it. The House reached a conclusion. I am not going to concede that I was wrong—I still believe that I was right—but I do concede that the House has made a decision, and it would therefore take a very compelling argument for us to revisit the issue.

We should not lose sight of the fact that last week the House approved all the many other items from the Modernisation Committee report, and as the hon. Gentleman says, those included increased resources and staff for Select Committees. I am pleased to say to the House that, having got the approval of the House last week, we are making all progress on that, and I anticipate that those resources will be put in place over the next Session.

The Leader of the House will be aware that at the moment President Bush is in Europe and, among other things, is seeking support for possible military action against Iraq. As President Bush has already consulted the Prime Minister on this matter, when will Parliament debate any possible action? When will the Government publish the dossier proving that Iraq has acquired weapons of mass destruction? Will we, as the Foreign Secretary said recently on the Frost programme, first seek a new mandate from the United Nations before we even consider President Bush's request?

As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, no decision on that matter has been taken, and a decision may never be taken. Plainly, should a decision be taken, the House would have to be consulted and there would have to be a full debate. With respect, I think that we have proved ourselves very willing to consult the House and debate these matters in the House, as witness the six full days of debate which we gave to the use of military force in Afghanistan. As for the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, it is clear that one of our strengths in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan was the international coalition of support. Plainly, any action in Iraq must also look for similar international support, and the UN is a good place to build such support.

Will the Leader of the House give a progress report on his deliberations with the Lord Chancellor about amending the Data Protection Act 1998 so that Members of Parliament can once again represent their constituents' interests properly?

As the House will understand, I share Members' concern that when they are approached by constituents, they cannot take action on their behalf because it might breach the Data Protection Act. Plainly, that is not a suitable way in which to work; when our constituents approach us they expect us to do something—that is why they come to us. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are making progress on the proposal to introduce a statutory instrument to cater for the position of Members of Parliament and other elected people in public life; I hope that next month we will be able to clear the matter up.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the Government's intention to fund the nursing care of residents in care homes, so that they benefit financially. Is he also aware, however, that a significant number of care homes, including Highfield Holdings in my constituency, have raised their residential fees by the amount paid for nursing care? Highfield Holdings has raised fees by about £69 a week, which means that residents are paying exactly the same as they were before, and are not getting the financial benefit that the Government intended. That is unacceptable and morally reprehensible. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for that to be debated in the House so that Members can express their views on that disgraceful action?

My hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to many Members who have been approached by constituents, and I fully understand and share his concern. The problem is known to the Department of Health, which has written to a number of homes that are raising their prices. Ultimately, they are private commercial institutions, and pricing is under their control, but the measure was introduced as public policy to relieve pressure on residents in those homes and their families. I very much hope that the people who run those homes will recognise that residents and their relatives should benefit most from that public money.

Can we have an early debate on the state of the food processing industry, with particular reference to the Albert Fisher group, which went into receivership today, jeopardising 3,000 jobs across the country? As the Leader of the House knows, Fisher Foods is the largest private sector employer in my constituency, with 700 jobs in its Fraserburgh and Peterhead factories, and this is an extremely anxious time for the workers and their families. What role does the Leader of the House envisage for Departments in securing the customer base of those profitable operations and finding an alternative buyer so that we can retain those vital factories in the north-east of Scotland?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the impact of that development on his constituents. As I understand it, the operations will be run as a going commercial concern by the receiver for another six weeks; I hope that that will provide an interval in which an alternative buyer and operator can be found. The plants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have received substantial investment in the past decade, and I understand that they are profitable and have a number of high-value prestigious clients, such as Marks and Spencer and Safeway, which is a testimony to their products. In those circumstances, of course we want another buyer to come forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and the Scottish Executive will do anything that they can to help, but ultimately this is a commercial matter.

I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend that we will have a debate on energy on 20 June, and I thank him for his good offices in helping to bring that about. Does he agree that Members will have an opportunity to take part in an important debate on the nation's long-term requirements, and will have the chance to talk about things like the new generation clean-coal technology?

Given the number of times that my hon. Friend has raised that matter with me over the weeks, I would have been severely disappointed if he, at least, had not thanked me for arranging that debate. Its title implies that we will be looking at energy until 2050, which is a long perspective but a necessary one. Looking at the future of our energy needs and their impact on the environment, the issues to which my hon. Friend referred are plainly relevant and are important to our investment in an efficient, effective and reliable energy supply in Britain.

Will the Leader of the House please find time for an early debate on the way Ministers handle their correspondence? I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 11 April. It may seem to some people—not to me—reasonable to wait six weeks for an answer to a letter, but that letter was dated 11 April 2001. I have written time and again to ask for an answer and nothing seems to have happened. What has become of the ministerial targets for dealing with correspondence?

rose—

Write to him.

I am advised to write to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that there is any letter from April 2001 outstanding with me. I obviously cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman on the detail of his case, but I will happily take it up with the Department of Health. Plainly, I would like hon. Members to receive replies on time, and by and large Government Departments provide replies timeously. There will be the occasional bad case and I will certainly pursue it.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to bask in the congratulations of hon. Members in many, if not all, parts of the House on his pioneering work on pre-legislative scrutiny? That started online this morning on the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people throughout the UK have taken the chance to look at the website and make contributions'? The website is at www.parliamentlive.tv and the e-mail address is edemocracy@lse.ac.uk. Many dozens of people have already contributed to the evidence-taking, and many hon. Members have made contributions to the debate this morning. As that has been such a success, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all future Bills go through pre-legislative scrutiny, so that not only Members of the House but every member of our electoral community can participate in our debates?

This seems a good opportunity for mutual appreciation and congratulations, so may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the indefatigable way in which he has pursued the case for online scrutiny of legislation? The system started today in respect of the draft Communications Bill, and I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that it is proving popular and receiving much public interest. The point of pre-legislative scrutiny is to allow the public and lobby groups to join in, so that legislation is not simply a matter for debate within Westminster. As to the future, as I have said before, my ambition is to secure an outcome in which pre-legislative scrutiny will become the norm, not the exception. Because of the capacity constraints, including in relation to the parliamentary draftsmen, it will take us some years to get there, but I am convinced that that is the right way to go. If Parliament seriously wants to shape the future of Government Bills, it must see them early and in draft.

Will the Leader of the House make time available for an early statement by the relevant Minister from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the figures for deaths at sea published recently by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? The right hon. Gentleman should know that the number of deaths at sea in Scotland last year rose to 84, as opposed to 54 the previous year. He will also be aware that that is a matter of great concern in my constituency, as last year saw the closure of Pentland coastguard station in my constituency and the Oban coastguard station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). There may or may not be a link between those facts, but may we have a statement so that the issue is given a proper airing?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, which I understand must be a matter of deep concern to his constituents and to other constituencies that have sea-going fleets and constituents. I believe that I am right in saying that the closure to which he refers took place following a public inquiry, and that a tug has been deployed full-time within the area. However, the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes are disturbing and we will look closely at the recent report to see whether there is any contribution that we can make to ensure that we bring down those figures in future years.

My right hon. Friend may have read the report in Monday's Daily Mirror concerning the condition of the railway line from London to Colchester. That line runs through the heart of my constituency, and thousands, if not tens of thousands of people use it to commute into London every day. In the light of the serious allegations that have been raised, and the concerns that there will obviously be in the public mind, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate or statement on the condition of the nation's rail way tracks?

I am aware of the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and I think that I am right in saying that the information was taken unofficially over a 10-mile stretch of rail. The DTLR and Railtrack are seeking to obtain more details on what the filming involved and what it shows, and they will study it with great care. In the meantime, I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions writes to him giving the Department's views on the study and the extent to which it may be valid.

This morning, yet another story emerged about the technical problems at the air traffic control centre in Swanwick in my constituency. The story follows reports that the Civil Aviation Authority has rejected the increase in fees proposed by National Air Traffic Services. Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the House returns from recess next month, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions comes to the Chamber to make a statement on the technical reliability and financial position of NATS?

First, with regard to this morning's claims about NATS operators misreading heights of planes and being unable to read their new displays, NATS completely rejects those allegations. It remains put out that the integrity and competence of its staff have been questioned in such a manner and it is confident that nothing has happened to put the safety of passengers at risk.

On the new displays, when a new system is installed, it is plainly right to monitor it closely to ensure that it can be improved. That is happening at the present time.

The financial integrity of NATS was fully considered by the regulator when deciding whether prices and charges should be increased; he concluded that the increase was not justified in full knowledge of the financial background.

May I refer my right hon. Friend to the situation between India and Pakistan? I hope that he agrees that it threatens not only our nationals, as the Foreign Secretary's correct decision to downgrade staffing at our posts in Pakistan shows, but huge numbers of dual nationals. Does he agree that if any situation in the world is genuinely globally threatening it is that between India and Pakistan, which are both now nuclear powers? One of them at least has made no commitment on no first use of the weapons. The possibility of war on an horrendous scale between the two countries is a global tragedy, and the prospect of such conflict being a nuclear war can hardly be contemplated. What facilities exist in this moment of near crisis to allow Parliament to be kept in touch and to give us the opportunity to monitor the situation and have an input as it unwinds?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue, which is of grave concern. It must be of especially acute concern to hon. Members whose constituencies contain large communities that have community and family ties with the Indian subcontinent. The Government deeply regret that we have had to curtail some of our diplomatic operations and services in Pakistan. The reason for that is the growing terrorist threat in Pakistan; the decision was taken solely in the light of the safety and future of our nationals who are working for the British Government inside the country. That must quite properly be one of our first concerns. We have, however, maintained our consular provision, so we can still maintain, although possibly on a reduced basis, contact with British nationals and citizens in Pakistan.

On the wider issue that my hon. Friend raises, I am sure that the whole House will share his apprehension about the possibility of armed conflict between the two countries, which cannot be in the interests of either of them. In the event of any such conflict, there would be no winner: both would be losers. That is why all of us who are friends of both Pakistan and India and wish them well must do all we can to try to avoid such an outcome, and why the Foreign Secretary will visit the region next week to try to achieve the understanding that the world outside and the international community want on the avoidance of armed conflict.

Can I take the Leader of the House back to the obstruction of the parliamentary ombudsman by the Cabinet Office to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred? Will he ensure that there is an early debate on the relationship between this Government and the ombudsman? I refer him to the ombudsman's fourth report of November last year, in which he said:

"This is the first occasion on which a Government Department has refused to accept the conclusions of the Ombudsman on a question of disclosure of information."

Is it not time, some seven months later, for the Government to give a response to that report and not continue to ignore it?

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government fully accept the conclusions of the ombudsman in today's report, which are entirely consistent with what we have said in the past. It is indeed regrettable that over a period of three months the ombudsman's request for access to files was not granted, and the Cabinet Office secretariat has apologised for that delay. I see no policy issue here, and I certainly see no reason to turn the matter into a party political dispute.

Several churches in my constituency have written to me about Malawi. My right hon. Friend will have heard Malawi mentioned in the House yesterday, and the subject is raised again today in early-day motion 1375: [That this House notes the current plight of Malawi which faces its worst food crisis in nearly 20 years; acknowledges that the country is facing an immediate shortfall of thousands of tonnes of food; recognises that warnings of this crisis appeared three months ago; and calls on the international community to act with speed and generosity to avert disaster.]

Malawi is facing a desperate situation—probably the worst for 20 years—as regards food shortages. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to give the House some time to discuss how we can help Malawi?

My hon. Friend is right to draw hon. Members' attention to the grave situation in Malawi, which is life-threatening to many of its residents. That is why in the course of this year we have provided additional support for humanitarian aid and for food assistance in Malawi. Indeed, only last month we announced another £1 million for that purpose. We are keen to work with the Government of Malawi to resolve this, and we hope that they will be able to work with us on acceptable terms of transparency to ensure that our assistance is getting through to the people whom we want to assist. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the crisis in Malawi, understand the British public's compassion and concern about it, and will do all that we can to be of assistance.

The greatest disappointment arising from last week's Divisions on the Select Committee motions was the House's failure to back a call to increase representation on Select Committees for the smaller minority parties such as the Ulster Unionist party. All right hon. and hon. Members have to respect decisions of the House, but can the Leader of the House assure me and my colleagues in the minority parties that this most important of issues will not simply be forgotten about?

I know most of those who voted, although I do not have the list entirely off by heart.

I bet you do.

Yes, and I have a long memory, too.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that the vote on the size of Committees fell owing to a technicality, because it referred to the Committee of Nomination after that proposal had been defeated in an earlier Division. If it is the will of the House, I am not averse to considering ways in which the House can have an opportunity to reach a decision on the matter, although I see no point in revisiting the prior decision.

I support the call for a debate in the House on the importance of science policy, not least because a document that has come into my hands, apparently produced by officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the behest of the biotech industry, would severely restrict the rights of scrutiny of genetically modified crop approvals. As the Leader of the House probably knows, it is currently possible to present in hearings scientific evidence about damage to soil ecology, the wider environmental impact, genetic contamination and the impact on the feed and food chain. Under the proposals circulating in DEFRA, all those grounds of scientific objection would be removed from the scrutiny process.

I am sure that hon. Members understand that the gap between sound science and soundbite science is filled by scrutiny and liability, and it would be disastrous if Government policy were seen to become a cash crop for private gain. Will the Leader of the House assure me that we can have a full debate in which the House can assert the principle that the shaping of Government science policy will be driven by the precautionary, not the contributory, principle?

We apply the precautionary principle to all environmental issues. I am not familiar with the document that my hon. Friend cites, and I would like an opportunity of studying it before I comment on it. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we are undertaking a rigorous farm-scale evaluation of the trial of GM crops. The conclusions will appear in the next six to nine months, if I remember rightly. They will form part of an informed debate on the way forward for GM crops.

We have just passed the first anniversary of the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Curry commission on the future of food and farming has reported; the European Union is formulating its proposals for a mid-term review of the common agricultural policy; throughout the countryside, there is increasing anxiety about bovine TB, and as we have heard, further concern about GM crops. Despite all that, there has been no debate on agriculture and food-related matters in Government time in the past 12 months. Will the Leader of the House review the matter and ascertain whether we can hold such a debate before the House rises for the summer recess?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a splendid case for DEFRA, which was created to bring together all the issues that affect not only agriculture but the wider economy in the countryside, other rural issues and the environment. I am pleased to say that DEFRA has worked hard and successfully on that in its first year.

I am aware of the request for a debate on agriculture and wider countryside affairs, and I appreciate hon. Members' interest in the subject. I cannot promise a debate before the Whit recess, but I shall tuck the matter away for future reference.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the World Health Organisation's statement that it is worried about the childhood asthma epidemic in Britain? There is an obstacle in the form of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 because although it covers children's medical needs, it does not allow for people who look after children in schools to minister to those needs.

I am well aware of the alarming increase in respiratory diseases, of which asthma is one. That is one of the reasons why the Government have placed greater emphasis on and given greater priority to public health issues. We must focus on prevention as well as the much greater resources that we have provided for more nurses, doctors and beds and the treatment of diseases. I was not aware of my hon. Friend's specific point, but I shall draw it to the attention of the Department of Health.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement on the progress of the national stadium project. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must wait and see. It fulfils my commitment to the House on 7 May to update hon. Members before the Whitsun recess.

I want to deal with four main points. First, I shall consider the extent and nature of Government responsibility for the Football Association project. Secondly, I shall deal with the allegations that arise from the James and Tropus reports into the early stages of the tendering process. Thirdly, I shall update hon. Members on progress since my last statement on 7 May—perhaps it was not technically a statement, because it was made in response to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Fourthly, I want to comment on the lessons learned and the changes made consequently.

Clearly, the project is primarily a matter for the FA. It wants a national stadium at Wembley and it is prepared to pay for it. However, it is a clear principle that big infrastructure projects require some Government engagement, whether financial or facilitating. Patrick Carter's report made that clear. Government support is plainly a factor in the market's assessment of such a project. The first Wembley proposal was over-ambitious and poorly managed. The tendering process was flawed and secure bank lending was not achieved. Costs escalated and the Government's role was ambiguous. It was these weaknesses that led to delays, to the request from the FA for extra public funds, and to the Government's decision to ask Patrick Carter to carry out a full review of the project's feasibility.

The Government can decide to support the Football Association or we can walk away. If we walk away, it will almost certainly stop the project in its tracks. We cannot, should not, and will not take over the direction of the project. That remains clearly with the FA. However, when public funds are committed to a project, the Government clearly have a responsibility to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to safeguard public investment, and to secure the improvements to the management and governance of the project necessary for success. That is what we are doing.

We are insisting on best-practice public sector standards—which are higher than those that apply in the commercial sector—to protect the taxpayer and the lottery player. That should also reassure the market that this is a worthy project to invest in. Once those measures are in place, it will be appropriate for us to meet some of the non-stadium infrastructure costs, and we have identified £20 million for that purpose. Of course, we also need to stay engaged with the project to protect the public interest in the £120 million lottery grant made by Sport England.

Hon. Members will have read much in recent days about the James and Tropus reports into the procurement of the stadium project. These reports investigated alleged irregularities in the tendering and procurement processes, and weaknesses in the corporate governance of the project. The allegations applied specifically to the period from 1999 to the summer of 2000, and they make disturbing reading. That is why, when I saw the James report in December last year, I set clear conditions that this project had to be cleansed before any further commitment could be made by the Government. [Interruption.] We note the hoots of laughter from the Conservatives, for whom such matters of public finance are clearly irrelevant.

It is important that the allegations are now considered in the context of the progress made since my statement to the House on 19 December. The four conditions set as a result of the availability of David James's report were: a full value-for-money assessment of the construction agreement to be undertaken by an independent assessor; that Wembley National Stadium Ltd. supply a copy of the James report to the National Audit Office; that significant changes be made to corporate governance; and that legally binding agreements for the financing of the stadium, from whatever source, be concluded.

I should make it clear to the House that I do not believe that there have been any new disclosures which add to the concerns previously identified. It is important to note that David James's report did not find any evidence of criminal impropriety; nor did it recommend re-tendering the contract for rebuilding Wembley. The most important question to be answered, therefore, was whether the flaws identified by the James report in relation to procurement and tendering had irrevocably damaged the project, on grounds of cost, propriety or deliverability. The expert judgments suggest that they have not.

In December, I asked both the FA and WNSL to publish the James-Berwin Leighton Paisner report. For legal reasons, however, WNSL felt unable to do so. A publishable version has now, finally, seen the light of day. Much of what I have set out is history, but it is history from which we must learn. Changes have been made, particularly since December. I now wish to look to the future, because in many ways as much progress has been made on this project in the past five months as in the previous five years. I believe that the three conditions—assessment of value for money, consideration of the relevant papers by the National Audit Office, and the strengthening of project management and corporate governance—have broadly been met.

I will not repeat to the House what I said on these matters two weeks ago, except to say that a copy of the Sweett report—the independent value-for-money assessment—is available in the House of Commons Library for those who wish to read it in detail. It confirms that it is unlikely that re-tendering of the construction contracts would result in significant savings.

I do wish, however, to bring the House up to date on the question of the project's financing. On 7 May, I informed the House that the lead bank had agreed in outline to proceed. The FA has since said that it expects to sign a "heads of agreement" term sheet and an exclusive mandate with WestLB—the lead bank—in the next seven days, which will agree the project's overall financial structure. They have said that they expect to complete all the financial contracts at some point in the next 10 weeks. The bank is satisfied that it has access to all the information that it requires, including the James and Tropus reports. I should make it clear that I regard these time scales—which are not under my or the Government's control, and which relate to the contract between the FA and the relevant banks—as indicative, rather than definitive.

The prospects are good and the progress is promising, but the outcome is not yet certain: this is not yet a done deal. Accordingly, I will not give final approval to the Government's contribution to the non-stadium infrastructure until a final report on the extent to which the four tests have been met has been produced by Patrick Carter, after proper banking arrangements have been concluded and assessed.

It is clear to me—as indeed it is to the FA—that the current negotiations represent the last chance for Wembley. Should a Wembley deal not prove possible, I would expect the FA to enter into discussions with Birmingham about its proposals, as I have maintained in December and since. The FA has repeated its assurances that if Wembley fails to proceed, it will look to other options, including Birmingham. That is what it said in December, and yesterday I confirmed the position with the FA's chief executive, who also issued a statement to that effect.

The Birmingham bid, which was and is credible, has been examined by Patrick Carter and by the FA in good faith. However, the Carter report supports the view that Wembley would deliver higher revenues, hence its status as the FA's declared preference. The Birmingham bid remains only embryonic; planning permission for what is a green belt site has not been given; the detailed design has not been completed; final costings for the stadium have yet to be made; the business plan has yet to be thoroughly tested, or backed by market research; and there remains a significant funding gap to be bridged. So moving the project to Birmingham is not a straightforward process with a guarantee of success. However, if Wembley fails, Birmingham deserves the chance to make its case.

In that context, I want to clear up one matter. Some people have mistakenly assumed that a secret agreement exists between the FA and Sport England to reopen the old Wembley stadium if the new project fails. That is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the staging agreement between Sport England and the FA. It is the security obtained by Sport England for the £120 million lottery grant. It could, in theory, allow Sport England to require the FA to stage events at Wembley for 20 years in the event of the project failing. In reality—let us focus on the reality—the stadium would be very expensive to reopen, and would be increasingly sub-standard as a venue. The Carter report indicates that it would cost around £40 million for a quick fix to open the doors: a solution that would require a second, major refurbishment only five years later, costing tens of millions of pounds more.

The FA made it clear in its statement yesterday that reopening the stadium is only one of the options that might be available m the event of a failure to proceed with the new stadium; given the cost, it is an unlikely option for the FA to choose. However, it is for Sport England and the FA to decide how and—in the event of the project failing—when the grant is repaid.

I come now to the last point. Hindsight shows what a high-risk project this was. However, lottery money is not about risk avoidance. It should be much more about risk management. I believe that more work needs to be done with distributors on risk assessment in relation to large projects such as this. One solution that I intend to pursue is to involve the Office of Government Commerce in all high-risk lottery projects—the project has now been subjected to this process—to ensure full scrutiny of proposals before their approval. The OGC's report, in the light of the changes made and proposed, supports the stadium plans and recommends that the project should proceed to contractual close.

I intend to include this issue in the forthcoming consultation on the future of lottery distribution, which I have announced to the House and which I intend to bring before the House before the summer recess. It is important for the future of the lottery to get this issue right.

One year ago, the national stadium project was flawed, tainted and unsustainable. Since then, the efforts of the FA and other stakeholders, working with Patrick Carter and his team, have yielded results in governance, transparency and the potential to attract financial support to a much more credible project.

Because of that, the money sought from Government is still on the table. It forms part of the financial package and it will remain there while the present negotiations with the bank continue progress to a conclusion. There is some distance still to travel. If the four conditions that I have set out are met in full, the House can be assured that Government support will be given to a project that will have demonstrated that it deserves it; a project with the potential to benefit sport in England at all levels for generations.

I thank the Secretary of State for making the statement today, as she promised to do, and for an advance copy of it.

Here we are again: another day, another statement, another mess. We are told that the prospects are good and that progress is promising, but that the outcome is still not yet certain. We now have the deeply damaging contents of the Tropus report and the James report, in spite of which the Secretary of State says today that she believes that there have been no new disclosures that add to the concerns previously identified.

The House would like to know when the Secretary of State knew about the Tropus report. When did her Department have the report? Was it before 19 December 2001? Why were the FA and WNSL so slow to publish the James report? We have had sight of it only thanks to the vigilance of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the skilful chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

The Secretary of State plays down the contents of the two reports, taking comfort from the fact that the James report did not find any evidence of criminal impropriety and did not recommend retendering the contract for rebuilding Wembley. She focuses on whether flaws identified had irrevocably damaged the project on the grounds of cost, propriety or deliverability. It was yet another last chance for Wembley, and the possibility still existed that FA could enter into discussions with Birmingham on its proposal.

The statement gives rise to several questions. What matters remain for negotiation on Wembley? Are they matters of principle or of detail? How much longer is the Secretary of State prepared to give Wembley, and where does that leave Birmingham? What is Coventry's position?

Why did the Secretary of State tell the House earlier this month that

"the detail of that progress is shrouded in commercial confidentiality"?

Was she partly referring to the staging agreement? Did she know about the staging agreement giving a commitment that all football internationals and FA cup finals to be held until 2019 would be at Wembley? When precisely did she know that? Was that information made available to the other bidders?

On the position of athletics at Wembley, the Secretary of State has said that

"the Sport England report will be published shortly".—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 23–4.]

Where does the whole sorry saga leave Birmingham and Coventry? Would she support the reimbursement of the costs of the teams from those areas incurred in compiling their bids? What lessons are there for the lottery, and does she really think that this statement will reassure the market that the project is a worthy one to invest in? When can English sports fans expect to see a new national stadium opened? How many more drinks will Wembley enjoy in the last chance saloon?

I do not wish to be disrespectful to the hon. Lady, but I am sure that she wishes that her senior colleague had been here, because her response to the statement that I made was pathetic.

I became aware of the James report in December last year. As the hon. Lady says, it was shrouded in commercial secrecy, because it was highly sensitive. It was made available, as I made clear to the House on 19 December, on grounds of legal privilege. That limited the number of people who saw the report and the use that could be made of it. However, it is because of that report and my insistence that it be passed to my Department and made available to the National Audit Office—and because the steps that I have reminded the House of today were followed—that the project is now in the state that it is in today, instead of the flawed, tainted, unbankable state that it was in a year ago. That is a matter of fact.

The question of whether the financial deal will now proceed to a commercial close is a matter for the FA and the banks concerned, but the indications are that the banks will be encouraged by the consistency of Government support for the project and the fact that a commercial project has been subjected to a degree of rigour and scrutiny equivalent to the standards expected in the public sector.

In my statement, I set out the position in relation to Birmingham: when the Football Association made it clear that Wembley was its preferred location, the Birmingham team agreed—rightly—that it would undertake no further work on the proposal for the time being. I have set out, as made clear by the Football Association, the further steps that would need to be taken if Wembley fails and Birmingham is then considered as an alternative.

The hon. Lady asks what I meant by "shortly" as regards publication of the athletics report. I suggest that when she gets back to her office she tell off her researcher, because the information has been in the Library, in response to a parliamentary question, for about two weeks. It is also available on the Sport England website.

Finally, I have made very clear the lessons for the lottery and the steps I intend to initiate in order to ensure that the lottery does not become risk averse, and that where lottery money is invested in risky projects, that is done on the best known understanding of the likely effect of those risks.

The project is now moving forward. The hon. Lady's contribution shows that none of that progress has been achieved with the help of the Opposition.

What is pretty clear is that if a new Wembley stadium is built, it will be coated with high-gloss whitewash.

My right hon. Friend will understand that, as far as I am concerned, what matters is the House's custodianship of the expenditure of public money. Will she therefore make it absolutely clear that in no circumstances whatever will a penny above the £20 million to which she has previously referred be given by the Government for this project?

My right hon. Friend talked of the need to protect the taxpayer and the lottery payer. She will be aware that the David James report—which, like the other documents, was published only because the Select Committee forced their publication—identifies serious breaches of the lottery funding agreement and subsequently a complete failure by Sport England to do anything about it. There has been a serious dereliction of duty by Sport England, which flung £120 million at the project and did not lift a finger to monitor how the money was used.

Will my right hon. Friend hold Sport England to account? My view is that there should be sackings at Sport England—especially Mrs. Brigid Simmonds, who seems to take pride in the neglect of Sport England. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that never again, in any public project, will such negligence be allowed? Furthermore, will she ensure that my constituents' money, whether paid through lottery tickets or taxes, will be safeguarded and not used to provide a free gift of a stadium to the FA?

If I may take my right hon. Friend's third point first, I have made it clear on the Floor of the House and before his Select Committee that there are lessons to be learned in relation to the stewardship of lottery grant. That point was also recognised in evidence to the Committee from David Moffett, now the chief executive of Sport England. I shall study carefully the Select Committee's conclusions on the specific points where it considered that Sport England had not offered proper stewardship.

Throughout this process, however, it is important to separate the allegations of negligence from the fact of negligence. Certainly, the lottery agreement has been altered and there were not proper and sufficiently close relationships between WNSL and Sport England, as evidenced by the fact that when the stadium was closed Sport England was not aware of that fact. I am entirely persuaded, therefore, of the need for some changes, but it is important to focus on fact rather than allegation.

On my right hon. Friend's second point, the House will be clear about the sources from which public money for investment in Wembley stadium will come: there will be £20 million for non-stadium infrastructure and £21 million from the London development agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions recently announced the plans to upgrade Wembley Park tube station. I am clear that that is the proper limit of public investment in this project. Indeed, part of the financial deal on which Patrick Carter's advice has been taken is intended to ensure that the FA bears the risk for the project.

Finally, on my right hon. Friend's point about publication of the James report, the Tropus report to which he referred is a dossier of allegations. The James report has now been slightly amended and is in publishable form. At Christmas, I called for its publication. It has now seen the light of day and I welcome that.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement today, but I regret that there is not a little more progress to report. I also commend her fortitude in riding out the embarrassment that the Government should feel about the entire Wembley saga. At this stage, she is right to see this bid through to an actual conclusion one way or the other. Will she confirm that the banking arrangement is 95 per cent. agreed and that it is a process of due diligence that is now under way? Is it not time that some due diligence was shown in this project?

As the Wembley bid is nearing a conclusion, one way or another, surely it would be perverse in the extreme to exaggerate the significance of a few weeks' delay now and to favour another bid that, for understandable reasons, is not even on the starting blocks in terms of planning, costing or funding.

Finally, should the new Wembley stadium project fail for one reason or another, I urge the right hon. Lady to keep a rather more open mind than seems apparent from her statement about the possibility of breathing some new life into the old Wernbley stadium. If a new stadium is to be in Birmingham, east London or anywhere else, it will take many years to deliver and some extended life for the old Wembley might well be a useful transitional phase.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's practical and sensible approach to the financing of the project. I will not make any predictions about the probability, and so forth. This is a matter for negotiation between the FA and the lead bank. I have made it clear that the money that the Government have offered for non-stadium infrastructure is on the table and will remain there while the process of negotiating the deal to a close takes its course.

On the allegations, it is important to be clear that the allegations made by David James in his report became known to me and my Department in December, although there was certainly a belief before that that there had been some impropriety in the procurement of the contract—it had been known to Patrick Carter. Progress has been secured since that time. The focus on the allegations now should not cloud the progress that has been made in the intervening six months.

Finally—as I have said too many times to repeat, but I shall say it one more time—the decision on the location of the national football stadium is a matter for the FA.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in her future consideration of this issue, she will not be swayed by the anti-London hysteria that is being whipped up by Conservative Members against the Wembley option? Will she also assure me that she recognises the fundamental importance of a rebuilt, modernised Wembley stadium to many businesses in my constituency and to the wider north-west London economy? When does she expect that we can have some confidence in the FA's ability not to be completely and utterly incompetent at building national stadiums again?

Well, first, the Opposition's attitude is opportunist, rather than particularly anti anything at all. Secondly, yes, of course the national football stadium will be a very important source of regeneration in a part of north-west London that badly needs such investment and regeneration, and I welcome that fact. As for the time scale, I have made the position clear.

Several years on, there is still no real plan or clear way ahead. Is not this whole saga a classic example of the syndrome of paralysis by analysis? Now, the Secretary of State's latest wheeze appears to involve four key tests. If those four key tests are met, can we have a referendum?

The hon. Gentleman has worked hard on that one, hasn't he? [Interruption.] I suspect he has been practising all day. There are two worlds in all this: the world of the FA, the Government trying to make things work, the lead bank negotiating on due diligence and the other stakeholders making the project happen; and there is the world of the Opposition, who are increasingly irrelevant.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity of her statement and the seriousness with which she has approached this issue of national importance, in marked contrast to the official Opposition's absurd responses. I endorse her concerns with regard to regenerating a part of north-west London that needs it and, indeed, sustaining that economy in London for the future, but when she is being firm about there being no public money in addition to that already stated, will she consider the fact that there are serious concerns about how fans would travel to Birmingham if the plan were moved to the midlands, as it would be almost exclusively car based?

I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, the benefits if the national stadium proceeds at Wembley will be felt by her constituents as well. I have to say with the greatest respect that, at the moment, I am more focused on how fans will travel to a national stadium at Wembley than on any of the other options, which is why I welcome the announcement of investment by London Transport and the Mayor in upgrading Wembley Park tube station. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for his advocacy and determination in securing that improvement for his constituents.

To say that the attempt to provide a new national stadium at Wembley has been a sorry saga rather understates the case, but will the Secretary of State confirm that she said in her statement on 19 December that she had asked the FA to deal with four points? Those four points, which she listed in her statement today, have all been dealt with and the heads of agreement between the banks have been confirmed. Although the detail has to be sorted out, surely the only choice now is to conclude those negotiations successfully and build a new stadium at Wembley, which will come sooner than any alternative, generate more income and, in fact, be cheaper. It is now absolutely essential, after the farce of Picketts Lock, that the decisions be taken and the infrastructure put in place so that north London's economy can be regenerated.

I welcome that unexpectedly sensible intervention from the Opposition Benches. I am not wholly satisfied that all the conditions have yet been met. I have made clear the work in progress in relation to the financing of the project, and I wait to be assured that all the corporate governance changes necessary, as identified by the James report and others who have examined the project, are in place and are secure. I will ask Patrick Carter, who has had an independent and advisory role in relation to this matter, to advise me that the four conditions have been met and that the Government can have confidence, when investing the £20 million to which I have referred, in allowing the project to proceed. That is the proper and prudent way to approach the matter, and that is what I intend to do.

Wembley is—in my right hon. Friend's words—not yet a done deal. If the west midlands option can therefore be revived, will she confirm that the £20 million from the Government will still be on the table? What will happen to the £120 million from Sport England?

I have, I hope, made the position absolutely clear in relation to the Birmingham bid—it is an option that the FA will consider if its preferred option of Wembley fails. I spell that out because I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about that. I made it clear in December, and it remains the case, that if the Wembley project fails I would ensure that the £20 million that would be made available for infrastructure there would be made available for the Birmingham project. I have also made it clear on several occasions that, in the event of failure in relation to Wembley, I would expect the lottery grant to be repaid. That would be a matter for further negotiation between Sport England and the Football Association, but that would be the clear expectation.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on not setting a deadline today? Is it a coincidence that she represents a London constituency, her predecessor represented a London constituency, two of the three people who have held the job of Minister for Sport represent London constituencies, and the present holder of the job represents a Sheffield constituency? Is that why Birmingham does not stand a chance? Why does she not say so?

No.

In case the point gets lost in this debate, the majority of football supporters would welcome siting the national stadium in Birmingham. Equally, the majority of football clubs would welcome siting it in Birmingham. Many Labour Members are very concerned about the way in which the FA has handled this situation, for many reasons. In particular, we do not want to find, at the end of this period, that our Government cause the opprobrium and embarrassment to rest with us and not the FA.

What is the Secretary of State's or her Department's judgment of when we shall get to the end of this saga of the FA and Wembley? The negotiations continue. What is her estimate—

Order.

I wonder when the hon. Gentleman might get to the end of his question. There are quite a number of other hon. Members to fit in.

What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the final outcome of these negotiations?

I am well aware of the level of popular support and support from hon. Members on both sides—my hon. Friend made this clear—for the Birmingham option. However, as I have done on a number of occasions, I remind him that the decision about the location of the national stadium is a matter for the Football Association. It is not a matter for me.

In my opening remarks, I set out the indicative time scale that the FA has notified for the next stages in relation to banking. That is the best indication that we have. I have also made it clear to the House today that the Government's offer remains on the table while the negotiations proceed. However, I do not know by precisely what date they will conclude.

I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for his unfailing advocacy of the west midlands and its bid. I wish him well in his continued pursuit of his cause.

As a Tottenham supporter from Northern Ireland, I have not been to Wembley often enough. However, I first went to Wembley in 1966 for the match to determine third and fourth places and then to the World cup final when I supported England.

This is not a parochial issue, but it has become all about Birmingham and Coventry. As I said, I am a Tottenham supporter from Northern Ireland and, back home, there are United and Liverpool fans as well as a few Rangers and Celtic supporters. We want the national stadium to be at Wembley. We want to go to London, to go up Wembley way and to see the twin towers. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the national interest, she should stop passing the buck, show some leadership, support Wembley and rebuild it? That is where we went in the past and it is where we want to go in the future.

I shall be delighted to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Football Association. I can be absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman about the practical steps that the Government have taken with the FA—I have set them out to the House—to enable the project to make progress.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed that an option was agreed between the FA and Sport England in 1999 that the national stadium could remain at the current site in Wembley. However, she said that she thought that there had been a misunderstanding about the nature of that agreement. May I draw her attention to the fact that, on 4 July 2001, the chief executive of the FA wrote to the chief executive of Birmingham city council confirming that there were three—I repeat, three—options for the national stadium? The chief executive of the FA said that the options were:

"1. The current design proposal for a 90,000 stadium at Wembley,

2. A new 80,000/85,000 design for Wembley,

3. A new 80,000/85,000 design in Birmingham."

He said that he was being "completely open".

As there clearly was a further option—let us put it no stronger than that—it remains a fact that Birmingham and, I believe, the country have been misled. As a result of that, is not the FA obliged to do two things? First, if it has misled Birmingham, it should compensate Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands for the expenditure that they have already incurred. Secondly, even at this late stage, it should play fair and give Birmingham a fair deal and respond to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) correctly said was the choice of the fans—to bring the national stadium to Birmingham.

I think that there was some misrepresentation of remarks made by the FA's company secretary to the Select Committee earlier this week. That led the chief executive of the FA to set out yesterday very clearly the nature of the FA's position on Birmingham and to confirm to me by telephone yesterday that nothing had changed in the FA's position on Birmingham between now and last Christmas, which is when the announcement that the FA would proceed with Wembley was made.

For my hon. Friend's information, let me quote the chief executive. He said:

"Nothing has changed since then and, as far as The F.A. is concerned, Birmingham would remain an option for the national stadium should the new Wembley not proceed. As has always been the case, this would of course be subject to discussions by all the stakeholders on how best to abort the current project and any agreements relating to it."

He finished by saying:

"I am very clear therefore that Birmingham have not been misled by either the Carter review team, government or The F. A."

Following on from what the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) said, is the Secretary of State aware of the enormous pride in our greatest sporting triumph of 1966, which took place at Wembley stadium? Is not the present shambles regrettable in view of those memories? Has it not brought international shame on this country and on the greatest game in the world? How does she see the role of the Government, not only in the shambles, but from here on in? Is the national stadium the Government's responsibility, or is it not?

I will not rehearse the arguments that I have already made. What I will do is send the good wishes from every corner of the House to the England team. I hope that they repeat their magnificent achievement of 1966 in the next few weeks.

This is obviously a game of three halves. When the Secretary of State sends her greetings to the England team, will she tell them that we are going to extend the principle of the timeless test to football matches? If players find themselves 1–0 down at full-time, the referee will not only extend the game until they score two or three goals, but suspend the offside trap and probably go around chopping off the legs of the opposition as well. That is how sponsors and supporters of the west midlands bid feel, as other hon. Members have said.

Some 69 per cent. of fans throughout the country want the stadium to be in the west midlands, as do 55 of the league clubs. Anyone with any sense wants the stadium there. The deadline of 30 April set by the FA and the Government will be passed by several months because it will be the end of July by the end of the 10-week period. When, and under what circumstances, will the Government ensure that the FA honours its undertaking to Birmingham so that its bid can be considered properly and given a fair chance in line with the views of the fans, the clubs and the game in general?

I will provide my hon. Friend with a copy of the letter sent by the chief executive of the Football Association, to whom his comments should be addressed.

The right hon. Lady does herself no favours by blaming the previous Secretary of State and the Football Association. However, in response to the question asked by her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), she said that what was said on Tuesday had been misrepresented. The transcripts of that will be available, but let me tell her that Mr. Nick Coward, the company secretary of the FA, made it clear that Birmingham was never in the running. Mr. David Moffatt, the chief executive of Sport England, speaking of the deal to return the £120 million and the fact that Binningham was never in the running, said that Birmingham looks extremely remote because of that. There was no misrepresentation.

If the Football Association has changed its mind, I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that progress has been made on Wembley, and I hope that it goes ahead. However, if it does not, and in light of the Football Association's apparent change of mind, how will the £120 million be repaid?

The position of the Football Association on the potential Birmingham bid was clarified yesterday by Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Football Association. I ask the House to accept that.

On the repayment of the £120 million, I am not going to speculate either on the circumstances or on the negotiations that would lead to its repayment, save to say that it is subject to a contract between the Football Association and Sport England. I think that every party to the deal understands that if Wembley fails, the money will be repaid.

Is it not the case that, with £120 million of lottery money devoted to the scheme plus the £20 million additional public money pledged by my right hon. Friend, more money than it cost to build the Millennium stadium in Cardiff has been put into this project, just to cover one fifth of the overall cost? Is there not a third way available? The stadium is not needed—it is not even wanted by many England fans, who are happy to see their team travel around the country. Should we not close the roof on the deal altogether, cut our losses, and make Cardiff the permanent home of the FA cup final and the play-offs?

No doubt my hon. Friend will suggest that to the Football Association. He never loses an opportunity—nor should he—to praise the excellent Millennium stadium in Cardiff.

Is my right hon. Friend as fed up as I am with the moaning voices who continue to try to derail Wembley by highlighting two-year-old management defects as though they were today's current news? Will she confirm that the Sweett report has concluded that the new stadium represents good value for money, and that the independent National Audit Office and the Office of Government Commerce have said that the project is now well managed and should proceed? Will she confirm that the new Wembley stadium will bring regeneration and an estimated 20,000 jobs to my part of north-west London? In the expectation that the FA concludes the deal in the next 10 weeks, does she look forward with me to the silencing of the moaning Mancunian, extinguished once again by the Wembley roar?

Yes to the first point, yes to the second, and yes to the third, but I am not absolutely sure how many jobs will be created as a result of the stadium. As for the fourth point, I look forward to progress on the stadium. Everyone who has played a part in the scrutiny, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), deserves credit.

When did my right hon. Friend and her Department become aware of what she has described as a theoretical commitment by the Football Association to continue to use Wembley even if the plan for a new stadium fell through?

That was part of the staging agreement that formed part of the lottery agreement that settled the payment of the money from Sport England to WNSL. In January 2000, the Select Committee was informed by Sport England of the existence of the staging agreement.

When did the Secretary of State know?

I became aware of the staging agreement when I became Secretary of State and examined the terms under which the £120 million had been paid.

I draw the attention of the House to those parts of the Secretary of State's statement that deal with the FA's comments to the Select Committee. It was in response to my questions in the Select Committee, especially those addressed to Mr. Coward, that it was revealed that, in the worst-case scenario, the £120 million could be repaid only if the contractual agreement to FA events being held at Wembley were broken. Only if that agreement were broken could the project go to Birmingham, and the only way to get the £120 million is to honour that contractual agreement. There is therefore a conflict in the position that the FA is trying to promote. The FA is speaking with a forked tongue in suggesting simultaneously that Birmingham is in with a chance if everything else falls through, and that the money can be paid back. Both cannot happen because of the contractual agreements.

However, on a more positive note—

Order. The hon. Lady must hurry. Her question is becoming a statement.

How will the Secretary of State, as design champion for architecture and the built environment, ensure that, wherever the stadium is built, we will have excellence?

That is a very good question. The Foster design has attracted both support and admiration. Ultimately, the choice of architect and design is a matter for the Football Association, and it wants to stick with the Foster design for the reasons referred to by my hon. Friend.

I hope that I have made clear to the House the position regarding the staging agreement. I believe that the chief executive of the FA clarified the position in his letter yesterday. The staging agreement between Sport England and WNSL would clearly have to be renegotiated, but we must add to the fact of its existence the fact that after the agreement was settled, the stadium was closed in October 2000, and as Patrick Carter's report makes clear, it would cost an estimated £40 million to reopen it. In those circumstances it would be fit probably for about five years, after which a further substantial sum would have to be paid. Those are the sorts of complexities that would have to be addressed in the event of the Wembley project failing and the money being due for return.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I concur, probably for the first time in my life, with the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). As a Scot, I believe that Wembley is important to the whole of the UK, not just England. I also have a personal interest because for many years I have bored my family and friends with a video of me scoring a goal at Wembley, and when I start to bore my grandchildren, I want it to mean something to them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the project is now making progress not because of the FA but in spite of it? Does she also agree that the Tropus and James reports confirmed that the FA acted in a cavalier and arrogant manner, and one of the lessons that we should learn from the whole experience is that lottery funding agreements must impose much more robust standards on the recipients of funds, and, even more importantly, that those standards must be enforced?

Yes, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about lottery agreements. The terms of the Government's continuing support—the four tests to which I have referred—were made clear to the FA as being non-negotiable. The FA accepted that, which means that we have been able to make the progress that has undoubtedly been achieved. I hope that shortly my hon. Friend will be able to go to Wembley for his encore.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there might be differences of opinion about Wembley and Birmingham, Coventry, which has been mentioned today, meets the criteria? It is a brownfield site, it has planning permission—unlike Birmingham—and it has been well costed, despite what the Secretary of State may think.

As my hon. Friend knows, Patrick Carter, with the FA, considered the Coventry bid. The FA has decided to go to Wembley, and, as I have made clear, it is a matter for the FA. However, I know that that is a disappointment for my hon. Friend.

The Secretary of State has conducted herself impeccably in the course of this difficult matter, and the fact that we are now closer to starting the construction of a new national stadium at Wembley is very much due to what she has done in the past 12 months.

Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that when people say that the Japanese, the South Koreans, the French, the Australians, the Spanish—

The Welsh.

And indeed the Welsh—They have all managed to construct magnificent stadiums and to organise big international events, but it is mainly because their Governments were prepared to take over the projects and to run them. In this country we have the worst of all possible worlds for such projects: minimum Government financial contributions but maximum Government interference. On my right hon. Friend's part, of course, that has been highly constructive. It is about time that we looked at these projects and decided that the arm's length principle simply does not work. If we are going to run national projects, and the Government are going to start taking the blame for some of the things that go wrong, they should run them from the outset. I look forward to the point at which 'we can get on and stop nitpicking, so that my right hon. Friend can echo the famous words of Kenneth Wolstenholme in her next statement.

I join my hon. Friend in saying that now, I hope, is the time to move forward. He is right that claims about the success of stadiums in other countries sometimes bear closer scrutiny. Stadiums funded by the commercial sector that fail become a burden on the taxpayer. I am determined that that will not be the case with this stadium.

rose—

Order. We must move on. I have programmed business to protect, and no doubt there will be opportunities for this matter to be aired again.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Speaker had any indication from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that he wishes to come to the House to make a statement to correct previous statements to the House on the timing of his decision to put Railtrack into administration? The Secretary of State has made numerous references in the House to the fact that he made that decision on 5 October. For example, on 5 November last year, he said of the decision:

"It was taken on Friday 5 October. That is the 20th time I have told the House that and it is the truth of the situation."—[Official Report, 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 22.]

Yesterday and today, however, there have been reports that at a meeting with the Paddington Survivors Group on 12 September the Secretary of State referred to that decision. Pam Warren from the group said:

"He said Railtrack wouldn't be much trouble for much longer. He was to replace it with a not-for-profit company."

Another member of the group said:

"Mr. Byers said there would be an announcement around October 8 that would be very pleasing to us."

At the very least, that throws doubt on the timing of the Secretary of State's decision. Has he indicated to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Speaker that he wishes to come to the House to make a further statement? If not, could I ask for guidance on how we can ensure that he comes to the House so that Members may question him about the matter and make sure that the House has been told the truth?

The short answer to the hon. Lady is that Mr. Speaker has had no such indication of an impending statement. The Chair has no power to require a member of the Government to make a statement to the House. I am sure that the hon. Lady will find other ways of pursuing the matter, which she has now put on the record.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following yesterday's exchange during Prime Minister's Question Time about the allocation of responsibilities and the confusion about referendums, I want to draw to your attention to another confusion and ask for guidance on how to proceed.

When I asked how I should pursue a matter relating to a royal issue, the Table Office said that I should pose a question to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I duly did so on 15 April. On 19 April, the answer to my question on its duties in relation to royal issues came back—"None." I then asked the Prime Minister on 22 May which Department had lead responsibility for royal matters, and he answered:

"In England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor's Department has lead responsibility for these matters."-[Official Report, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 320W.],

Given that it is difficult to pursue that, as no Department is taking responsibility, will you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how best to take the matter forward and who is responsible? Is it perhaps the Transport Secretary?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the content of ministerial answers is not a matter for the Chair. In this particular instance, however, the Chair would feel diffident about advising the hon. Gentleman how to pursue matters through parliamentary questions, as he has some form in that respect.

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a serious matter affecting my constituency? You may be aware that there was a report this morning of alleged safety breaches at the air traffic control centre in Swanwick. As one of the affected airports—Cardiff—is in my constituency, I have sought assurances. I am afraid that I have to report that there are serious inconsistencies in the information that I have received, with different views given by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, both of which bodies are the responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. In light of the fact that I was unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in business questions and that the House is going into recess tomorrow, I believe that that is a matter of great public concern. How can we now best get the Minister with responsibility for aviation to look at it and report to the House?

The hon. Gentleman has stretched the definition of a point of order to get the matter on the record. I recognise that it is of obvious importance, but there are parliamentary means of pursuing such issues, even on an urgent basis, and I leave him to think about that, although he has now put his concern on the record.