I have a short statement to make to the House. I have received a letter from the Librarian, indicating her wish to retire at the end of this year. I will arrange for the text of the letter to be printed in the Official Report.

Miss Priscilla Baines has served the House for almost 37 years, the last five of them as our Librarian. During her stewardship, the Library has continued to develop and expand, and her team has risen to meet the challenges that new technology has presented. Miss Baines has faithfully served Members of the House of Commons since 1968 and I suspect all of us have cause to be grateful to her for her diligence and expertise in finding that piece of information that we have needed at one stage or another to complete our research on a particular point.

I know that all Members will join me in thanking Miss Baines for her unstinting and devoted service to the House. We wish her a long and happy retirement.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to members of her team in the Library who, with Miss Baines, have provided us with the excellent service that we enjoy.

Miss Baines will retire on 31 December 2004 and I am announcing to the House today that, after a rigorous competition and on the advice of a selection board, I have appointed Mr. John Pullinger to succeed her. Mr. Pullinger is currently executive director of the Office for National Statistics.

[Following is the letter:

I write to confirm my decision to retire on 31 December 2004.

By the end of this year I shall have served the House for almost thirty-seven years, the last five of them as Librarian. The Library that I shall leave will be very different in many respects from the one I joined early in 1968. The Members' Library in the Palace still looks remarkably similar to the magnificent set of rooms first occupied in 1852 and we are very fortunate that it is still in use for the purpose for which it was originally designed. Much else, has, however, changed, mainly as a result of the technology which now underlies most of our services to the House and to Members.

Exploiting that technology for the benefit of our users has been one of the Library's biggest challenges and I think we can be very proud of the many improvements that we have made in our services. Those improvements might well not have been possible without the technology but we could not provide any of our services without our staff. I have been very lucky to have so many able and committed colleagues, most of all in the Library but also throughout both Houses. I am very grateful for their support and friendship and I shall miss them a great deal .

It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve the House, and Parliament, for so long. I have greatly enjoyed the opportunities to work for so many Members of Parliament and to be part of a department whose services have clearly been highly valued. I have every confidence that the challenges of the future will be met as they have been in the past.]

Mr Speaker the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Miss Baines. I know that she is held in great regard and much affection by Members and staff alike. Miss Baines has served the Library with considerable distinction and dedication. She is a recognised authority on parliamentary matters and has contributed to many publications, taking a leading role in the proceedings of the Study of Parliament group.

As Librarian, Miss Baines has fostered contacts with parliamentary libraries throughout the world. Throughout her career, Miss Baines has taken a very close interest in staffing matters, playing a major part in strengthening the trade union side.

Miss Baines has overseen the opening of the e-library and the development of the parliamentary information management system. I understand that this will be up and running for internal purposes by the end of the year. In the second stage, it will be an important tool, contributing to the way we deliver information to the public through a much more accessible parliamentary website.

Alongside the introduction of new technology, Miss Baines has taken forward a challenging change management programme aimed at modernising the way the Library Department delivers its services to users. This is a very significant legacy for what remains the finest parliamentary Library in the world.

I also understand that Miss Baines will be missed in the Commons gym, where she is a sprightly early-morning regular. I believe that the whole House will join me in expressing our thanks to her and in wishing her our best wishes on her retirement.

On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to associate myself fully with your remarks, Mr. Speaker, and with those of the Leader of the House.

The services offered by the Library have gone from strength to strength under Miss Baines' leadership. I note that last year a total of 75,000 requests for information and reference briefings were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That shows what an essential resource the Library is for Members. It is particularly so for the Opposition, who are very reliant on and grateful for the services provided.

It is also right to pay tribute to Miss Baines for significant innovations in recent years, such as the introduction of the debate packs, which have been very useful. Miss Baines deserves our thanks for all her work and our very best wishes for the future. Although I have never actually met her in the gym— [Interruption]—I know that she has a pleasant and approachable manner. We all want to wish her a long and happy retirement.

May I add my thanks and appreciation to Miss Baines on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? Whatever party we come from, we accept that a fact in the House of Commons is often a fairly elastic concept, but that a fact from the Library is a fact which is underpinned by independent analysis, complete professionalism and integrity. An analysis from the House of Commons Library is accepted by all on both sides of the House.

It is worth noting that, before the announcement, we were discussing the reform of government and the introduction of major changes in back offices and IT. Much of it has already happened in the Library: it has been assimilated efficiently without fuss, which reflects great credit on the Librarian. We want to thank her and welcome her successor, John Pullinger.

Priscilla Baines has been in control of the Library during a most difficult and complicated period. She has seen a complete change in the way Library services are provided. Every one of us has relied on the Library—in my case, for more than 30 years. Library staff are not only imaginative, responsible and hard-working; under Priscilla Baines' leadership, they have transformed themselves into probably the most imaginative resource that could be provided to any Parliament anywhere. We owe Priscilla Baines an enormous debt, which we shall never be able to repay. I cannot understand why we are letting someone so young retire so early.

For 21 years, it has been my privilege to use the wonderful resources of the Library. Only in the last six months, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Information, have I begun to understand the complexity of our great Library. I have always known that it is the Library's staff who make it what it is. Working with our Librarian, I now know why it is so special.

Like a well ordered farm or a well stocked duck pond, the Library is always there in full working order with Members browsing contentedly through papers or computers. The reality is that, like ducks on a pond or stream, the staff are paddling furiously to keep the show on the road. There, mistress of all she surveys, is our swan—the Librarian.

The agricultural analogy is apt, for Priscilla Baines has a first degree in agriculture and a second degree in agricultural economics, both from Oxford. When she joined the Library in 1968, it was no surprise that when the then Leader of the House, Richard Crossman, first set up the short-lived agricultural and science committees, he turned to her as the expert to take forward an exciting and challenging innovation.

Priscilla Baines has been leading exciting and challenging projects ever since. The House owes her and her senior staff an enormous debt of gratitude for the leadership of that great project which loaned 15,000 of the House's best but least used books to the British Museum. There, they can now be seen by thousands of visitors to the wonderful Enlightenment gallery, formerly the King's library, which was established as part of the British Museum when Parliament first voted to create the first national museum in the world.

More recently, it has been Priscilla's vision and ambition to develop an entirely new information storage and retrieval system for Members and our staff, known as PIMS—parliamentary information management services. The management of change in any great institution is exceptionally difficult. Priscilla Baines knows more about information management than anyone. Her new project comes on stream later this year. She will have had a twinkle in her eye as she christened it PIMS, for her wisdom is combined with wit; her love of opera is enhanced by her pursuit of travel; and her renowned knowledge of food has been known to be washed down with a glass of the other kind of Pimms.

As hon. Members, we respect and admire Priscilla's achievements. She is not, perhaps, a conventional librarian, but that is precisely why she has been so successful. I know—because I have asked them—that her large staff are very fond of her. Only last week, I was told how a colleague, on her first day back from maternity leave, attended a meeting and was instantly greeted by Priscilla saying, "Oh good, you're back!" Another colleague described how they enjoyed socialising after work with a drink on the Terrace, and said, "She is really good fun."

And so say all of us. We will be sorry to say goodbye later this year. We will miss her. Her retirement will be richly deserved. Her legacy to the House is very substantial, and we are truly grateful to her.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement, following the conclusion of the rail review that I announced on 19 January.

The railways provide an essential public service and underpin future economic growth. As the economy grows, demand for travel is increasing. Last year, the railways carried more than a billion passengers for the first time since the 1960s, so it is essential that we put in place the right organisation to run the railways, providing passengers with a reliable and efficient service.

This week's spending review has confirmed that we will be able to make record investment in rail. With increased investment, and with Network Rail now working in the public interest, it is right that we should now put the railways on a stable, long-term footing and tackle the remaining flaws left over from privatisation.

The proposals that I am announcing today streamline the structure and organisation of the railway. They provide a single point of accountability for performance, allow closer working between track and train, and also provide for greater local and devolved decision making. Together, these proposals will make sure that Britain's railways are run in the public interest, for the benefit of its passengers and freight customers.

I am publishing a White Paper today setting out these proposals in detail, and copies are available in the Vote Office in the usual way. Let me set out the key changes that I propose.

First, the Government will take charge of setting the overall strategy for the railways. It must be for Ministers, accountable to Parliament and to the electorate, to set the national strategy for the railways. The Government will set the high-level objectives, including the levels of performance. It is for the Government to decide how much money they are able to spend, and to be held to account for those decisions.

It follows, therefore, that the Strategic Rail Authority will be wound up, and that the majority of its functions, including all its financial obligations, will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The Department for Transport will take responsibility for awarding train operating company franchises. The Department will be restructured to reflect its new responsibilities.

As I said in January, the Government remain committed to maintaining strong, independent economic regulation for rail. That responsibility will remain with the Office of Rail Regulation, which will protect the rights of investors and railway customers and decide how much income Network Rail needs to deliver the Government's strategy. The office will ensure that the Government pay the proper price for what they buy.

Secondly, I turn to operational responsibility. Many of today's problems stem from the fact that, at the moment, no single organisation is in charge of running the railway on a day-to-day basis. In future, overall responsibility for the network will pass to Network Rail. The Government will set out what services Network Rail is to deliver, and Network Rail will take on new responsibilities, including leading industry planning, setting timetables and directing service recovery.

Too often, under the present system, companies have been able to pass the buck for poor performance. So, in future, Network Rail will be responsible for ensuring that the network delivers a reliable service through an agreement with the Government. It will be accountable to passengers and freight users for the network's performance. In consultation with its members, Network Rail intends to bring forward proposals to change its management and governance to reflect its new responsibilities.

Thirdly, the new structure will bring the operation of track and train closer together, allowing far closer working between Network Rail and the train companies. That will replace the current, sometimes confrontational relationship with one based on joint working.

The number of franchises will be reduced, and new arrangements put in place to allow for closer working between track and train operations—the importance of which the architects of privatisation failed to understand.

Experience his already shown—and the establishment of joint control centres is an example—that joint working results in improved performance. By providing for more efficient operation of the railway, these proposals will cut costs.

Under the new structure that I propose, there will be far greater clarity as to the responsibilities of track and train companies. Train operators will be able to concentrate on improving customer service and increasing passengers on the services that they run. When train operators' contracts are awarded, past performance will be taken into account, as well as key issues such as their proposals on costs and service improvements. The contracts will ensure that the Government can take operators off the railway if they repeatedly fail to deliver.

Controlling costs is essential. The White Paper makes it clear that the industry must do a lot more. We are spending record amounts to improve rail, but fare payers, freight customers and taxpayers rightly expect this money to be well spent.

My fourth key reform gives increased powers to the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the London Mayor, as well as more local decision making in England, particularly the passenger transport executives. Many decisions affecting the amount of money spent on the railway should be taken at a local level, but current arrangements often do not allow local and regional bodies to play a full part in decisions affecting their area.

As I said in January, local transport decisions are best taken by people who know what is needed locally. They should be able to make informed decisions as to what works best and what they are willing to pay for. So let me set out what I propose.

In Scotland we will give the Scottish Executive responsibility for planning, specifying and managing services that operate under the existing franchise. As the level of service specified will impact on the rail infrastructure, it is right that, subject to agreement about the transfer of resources to the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Executive should specify the network they require and finance it. So although the infrastructure will be owned and managed by Network Rail, with these proposals the Scottish Executive will decide what they want and how to pay for it.

In Wales, the Government will devolve additional responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly Government, recognising the different patterns of service there. The Welsh Assembly Government will specify services and fares for local services within and bordering Wales, and they will be responsible for funding those services. There will also be scope for the Welsh Assembly Government to specify and fund additional work on infrastructure if they so wish.

In London, we propose to extend the Mayor's responsibilities for rail services within the Greater London Authority boundary. In the short term, we will work with the Mayor to rationalise fares and ticketing across the different types of public transport in London, giving a better deal for fare payers. We will also work to identify options for giving the Mayor an increased role for services that lie for the most part within the GLA boundary.

In future we propose to enable the Mayor to buy additional services or to propose savings to services. We want to explore all the options, including the possibility of extending this to services beyond the GLA boundary. But that must be subject to consultation with train operating companies as well as neighbouring regional and local bodies before reaching a conclusion. Many London commuter services run well outside the GLA boundary and we need to ensure that the rights and interests of rail passengers outside London are protected.

The White Paper also acknowledges the valuable role of community railway lines, which we aim to put on a better financial footing, following the Strategic Rail Authority's recent consultation.

Passenger transport executives already manage transport provision in some of the main metropolitan areas of England. I propose that in future they will be able to buy additional services and to transfer funding between rail and other transport modes. So we will reform the funding arrangements and legislation for PTEs to provide more flexibility to make choices between rail and other forms of transport—bus and light rail, for example. These proposals amount to a significant devolution of powers across the country which will benefit the travelling public.

My fifth proposal covers a critical issue—safety. The Health and Safety Executive and Commission have done a great deal to improve safety, and over the years much has been achieved. However, we believe that it is essential to provide a very clear railway focus to safety.

The Government intend to simplify the safety regulatory structure of the railways. As part of that, we will therefore transfer responsibility for railway safety to the Office of Rail Regulation, which is independent of both Government and the industry. Safety is an essential part of railway operation. It should be in with the bricks. It needs a clear industry focus to make sure that safety is an integral part of operations. Our proposals will achieve that.

There are a number of other measures covered in the White Paper, including a better deal for freight operators. Rail carries 45 per cent. more freight than it did in 1995, and we want to see more of that. The White Paper makes proposals to encourage the continuing growth of freight. including giving freight operators more certainty about long-term access to the main freight routes.

The White Paper also includes proposals for a long-term strategy for the use of rolling stock to help the industry plan ahead more effectively. We need to get better value from rolling stock. The original leases were set at privatisation. The renewal of these leases in the same form would be poor value. So as passenger franchises are replaced, we will deal with these problems and drive a better deal for the public.

The White Paper also supports proposals for reform from the Rail Passenger Council Chair as part of the review. So we will create a more independent national structure for the RPC, giving passengers a stronger voice, but maintaining a regional presence.

In the light of the changes I propose, Richard Bowker, the chair and chief executive officer of the Strategic Rail Authority, will stand down and will leave his post in September. For the past two and a half years, he has shown outstanding leadership and a relentless determination to improve the railways. He has made a substantial contribution to the railways and leaves with my strong support and good wishes. I will appoint David Quarmby, who is currently deputy chair, to serve as chair of the SRA until it is closed, probably in the second half of next year. The board will appoint a chief executive to serve for the same time.

The SRA staff have achieved a great deal. I intend to build on the experience and the good work of the SRA and its staff as we restructure the railways. In the meantime, it is critical that everyone in the industry focus on driving up performance and improving costs. We will work with the industry to make the changes as quickly as possible. With the Office of Rail Regulation, we will take forward the changes to the arrangements for Network Rail and the train operators as soon as we can. Other changes I propose, such as in relation to the HSE, Strategic Rail Authority and devolved decision-making, will require primary legislation, which we will introduce as soon as possible.

At a time when the railways are carrying more people than they have done in the past 40 years, it is essential that we have a more customer-focused and passenger-friendly railway. I am streamlining the structure of the railway in order to improve standards and make rail more attractive for passengers. The proposals I am announcing today create a railway to serve passengers and freight. The Government will set the national strategy for the railways, Network Rail will be responsible for operating the network and track, and train companies will work closely together. We are putting the organisation of the railways on a stable long-term footing, backed by increased funding. We have set out a clear direction for Britain's railways, backed by the money they need. I commend this statement to the House.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The White Paper will be judged by what it does for passengers and for rail freight. Passengers have not had much from this Labour Government so far. After seven years, trains are less reliable, fares have risen more than other prices and promised improvements in the rail network have not been delivered. The east coast main line, Crossrail, Thameslink, the East London line were all promised in the 10-year plan or in Labour's election manifesto, but those projects remain stuck in the sidings with no firm dates for completion and conspicuous by their absence from today's statement.

Today, fewer trains run on time than when Labour came to power. Targets are set that have little chance of being met. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's target for increasing passenger rail use has now been dropped? Four years after the Deputy Prime Minister set up the SRA, it is to be abolished. That may be a welcome admission by the Secretary of State of one of his predecessor's mistakes, but it is of little relevance to the customer.

I welcome the decision to move responsibility for safety to the regulator. However, shifting responsibilities around Whitehall and replacing one set of bureaucrats with another will not make trains more reliable, stations more comfortable or fares more affordable. Why does the Secretary of State think that he and his civil servants can run the railways better than the train operators? Why will giving more power to the rail regulator, to Network Rail and the Department for Transport solve the problems of the railways when the all-singing, all-dancing SRA signally failed to do so?

Why on earth does the Secretary of State think that putting Ken Livingstone in charge of trains is a good idea? How will that affect those rail users whose journeys begin and end outside the area for which the Mayor is responsible, none of whom had the chance to vote against him last month? What discussion of that extraordinary proposal has taken place with the train operators? Why cannot they, rather than Whitehall bureaucrats, decide when trains should run, and thus respond to consumer demand?

Is not the best way to encourage extra investment in the rail network to give the train operators longer contracts, subject to strict performance criteria, so that they have the incentive and the stability to invest more money for the benefit of their customers? How will the new system of fewer franchises actually work? Over what period will train operators be able to plan and run their services without interference from politicians or bureaucrats?

During the dying months of the SRA, how will franchises be allocated? Will subsidies, which already cost the taxpayer £14 million a day, go up or down as a result of the White Paper? How will Network Rail be made more accountable to passengers under these proposals? How will the new governance of Network Rail ensure that it operates in the interests of taxpayers and customers?

Why will not the Secretary of State concentrate on the actual experience of the rail user? Commuters catching trains at Colchester or Manningtree experience conditions that have scarcely changed in half a century. No other business could survive by treating its customers in that way. No airport expects its passengers to stand around in the wind and rain, waiting for departures. What will the Secretary of State's structures and processes now do about those simple but important and basic challenges? What in the White Paper makes it likely that more freight will be carried on Britain's railways? Will the Secretary of State restore the grants to encourage that, which he withdrew last year?

What the Secretary of State has announced today is another example of fat Government. Instead of slimming down the bureaucracy, as his advance spin promised, bureaucrats will have a bigger role. Instead of the railways being set free, commuter services in the south-east will be burdened with an extra layer of fat and bureaucracy. These proposals give Ministers and bureaucrats a bigger role in running the railways, when what was needed was a smaller one. The winners from this review are the Department of Transport, Ken Livingstone and Network Rail, not the long-suffering railway passengers, who will search the statement in vain for specific proposals to address the reliability, cost and capacity issues that are at the top of their concerns.

I appreciate that the Opposition are at a disadvantage when a White Paper is published. It probably was not possible for the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to read it cover to cover, but that is a pity, because about 75 per cent, of the questions he asked would have been answered there. However, I shall attempt to deal with some of them.

It is important that people recognise the distinction between what is properly the province of Government—deciding how much money will be spent and setting the high-level objectives for railways—and what is properly the province of train operating companies, which is whether the 7.42 from Manningtree will run or not. The White Paper proposes the proper distinction. The Government, not the SRA, will deal with the high-level strategy and spending.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is a little nervous of addressing spending, because the Opposition's policy is to spend £1.8 billion less on transport than we now propose. It is not surprising that he does not want to go into that issue. He must recognise, however, that Government will be responsible for high-level strategy, and day-to-day operations will pass to Network Rail. If he looks at the document, he will see that the structure will be massively streamlined, compared with the one that existed in the past.

The hon. Gentleman asked about London. We are not proposing to give the Mayor power over trains outside the GLA. We are saying that for those railway lines within London. it makes some sense that the Mayor should have some say over them, because they are complementary to tube and bus services.

What a muddle.

The North London line is wholly within the GLA and is used by people because there is no tube line or bus service. Surely it makes sense that the Mayor should have some say over the trains that run on that line. If the Mayor decided, for example, that he wanted more stopping trains within the GLA boundary, but the trains in question originated from outside the area, the issue would need to be discussed with people who live outside the boundary. We are not talking about transferring all power over those trains to the Mayor. Why does not the hon. Gentleman look at what is actually being proposed?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned longer franchises. One of the problems with privatisation was that it was thought at the time that if franchises were awarded for a long period, such as 25 years, there would be more investment. What happened was that the costings in those long-term franchises proved to be hopelessly unrealistic. That is one of the reasons why costs got so out of control—the botched privatisation for which the hon. Gentleman was responsible.

There will be fewer franchises. In relation to the changes in governance involving Network Rail, it will bring forward proposals in the next few days. We are providing greater streamlining of the organisation of the railways. It will be infinitely better than the dog's breakfast that the Tory party left this country.

I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in sending me both a copy of his statement and a letter in response to the letter I wrote him as a submission to the rail review. I appreciate that he could not reply sooner and I am grateful for his courtesy in replying at the earliest opportunity.

I welcome much that is in the statement. The Secretary of State will know from our recent transport debate and the correspondence to which I have referred that he and I have reached many of the same conclusions. That is largely because common sense and logical analysis of the problems lead to some pretty obvious conclusions.

The travelling public are fed up with politicians bickering over blame. They simply want a safe, reliable, affordable railway on which they can count and, subject to the detail of the White Paper, the conclusions of the review should lay the framework for achieving their desire.

The railways have been dogged by over-complex and competing bureaucracies—I would even go so far as to say adversarial bureaucracies—and I have long argued that they need to be simplified. The review clearly accepts that. I welcome the proposed arrangements for strategic leadership by the Government and for operating responsibilities to lie clearly with Network Rail.

I welcome in particular the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of the SRA's responsibility for Scotland, as well as the proposals for Wales, London and the passenger transport executives in England. However, will the Secretary of State again confirm that the appropriate financial resources will also be transferred with those responsibilities?

It is right that Network Rail should have clear responsibility for delivery, which obviously requires strong governance. When will the Secretary of State be able to tell the House his thoughts about that? Does he anticipate restructuring the stakeholder board? At 120, it must be unwieldy to say the least—if not unworkable.

The suggestions for franchisees seem sound, but does the Secretary of State agree that three of the small franchises—namely, c2c, Chiltern Railways and Merseyrail—are among the best performers and that they will not easily fit into a larger franchise? On this occasion, will he accept that small is actually beautiful?

Strong and independent regulation is essential for the railways. I have argued that there should be one regulator for economic, safety and environmental matters, which is also broadly accepted by the review. Does the Secretary of State see the Civil Aviation Authority as a role model that could be adapted for use with the Office of the Rail Regulator? Will that office review the safety regulations so that there is an appropriate balance between the need for safety and economic drivers? I am pleased that the Government have recognised the basic inefficiency of the rolling stock companies and I look forward to studying the Secretary of State's proposals in detail.

Finally, I note that legislation will be required. In the light of the Secretary of State's acceptance of so many of the points that I have put to him, my colleagues in the House and in another place look forward to working constructively with him to help put the necessary legislation in place and, more important, to help deliver a 21st-century rail network for the long-suffering passengers of Britain.

If the hon. Gentleman can co-operate with his noble Friends in another place that will be very welcome—it does not always happen. I agree with much of what he said. To his credit, the Liberal Democrats actually have a transport policy, which is more than can be said for the official Opposition.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's questions, Network Rail will be proposing changes in its governance over the next few days. Obviously, that is a matter for the company.

On budgets and the transfer of resources, I want to move to a situation where PTEs actually know how much they are spending on the railways. There is a revealing table in the White Paper, which shows exactly some of the costs for heavy rail in the regions. PTEs will be able to make sensible choices as to whether to invest in heavy rail, light rail, buses and so on.

The hon. Gentleman asked about franchises and mentioned three that work well. I want to reduce the number of franchises because it is important that they are more closely aligned with the track organisation. I attach particular importance to that, but the exact shape and size is something that we shall need to look at.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on safety. There may be parallels with the CAA, if only to show that safety and economic regulation can sit in one regulator. What is important is to achieve the railway focus to which I referred.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and look forward to seeing how the Liberals maintain that steady course over the next year or so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that every traveller who is fed up with the constant muddle in which the rail industry has had to exist for the past 10 years will welcome his clarity? Will he ensure that the system whereby one company blames another is not continued in the future and that we have clear lines of responsibility, so that we—the Government and the taxpayers, who are paying for the system with greater sums than ever before—are not only given value for money but can see who wastes the cash and makes impossible the service to which every passenger is entitled?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We need clarity as to who is responsible for what. The Government accept responsibility for funding and the electorate are entitled to hold them to account on that. If a new Government came along who wanted to slash spending on transport, they would have to be held to account for that. We need similar clarity on operations, so that we can see who is responsible for trains running on time and, critically, as my hon. Friend pointed out, for spending money. As ever, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says.

Is the Secretary of State aware that about 50 per cent. of all passenger rail journeys are made by Londoners, yet last year London received only £73 million in revenue subsidy while the rest of the country got £1 9 billion? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has taken new powers to himself, which I welcome, will he address that matter urgently?

The hon. Gentleman is right: the London commuter network is the most heavily used part of the system. Obviously, subsidy is directed to the network as a whole, but as we move towards more transparent budgets and can see where the money is being spent, sensible decisions can be taken. However, before the hon. Gentleman calls for more subsidy, he might want to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) who is advocating a £1.8 billion cut in transport spending.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that rail congestion in west Yorkshire is greater than in most parts of the country, including the south-east. That is certainly true of the three lines that serve my constituency—Wharfedale, Harrogate and Leeds to Bradford. Can he assure me and my constituents who use those services that the new structures will be able to identify and deliver the renewal of rolling stock and the increase in capacity that is desperately needed to meet not only existing demand but the demand we hope to generate with the opening of new stations?

Yes, I can. Part of my proposals for west Yorkshire would give the passenger transport authority greater power to decide what is required. Obviously, the Government can take an overall strategic view as to the size and shape of the railways nationally, but decisions about what happens locally and how transport is provided—whether by heavy rail or other modes—are best taken locally. We want to move towards a situation where there is greater transparency about what happens so that there can be far better decision making than there is at the moment.

Members on both sides of the House will welcome the increased investment in the railways since privatisation, but the Secretary of State knows that many worthwhile projects are no longer in the plan. Will he have another look at the length of franchises? With a two-year rolling franchise, there is little incentive for a train operator to invest in improved stations or car parks. Will he consider increasing the franchise lengths so that such incentives can be restored?

As the SRA no longer stands behind Network Rail, can the Secretary of State confirm that Network Rail's borrowing will appear on the Government's balance sheet? So far it has not done so. Finally, will he not lose sight of the role of rail in a sustainable and coherent transport strategy? Rail fares are rising ahead of inflation—way ahead of motoring costs—and he has abandoned the growth targets for use of the railway, so in the statement that he has just made is he not running the risk of not capturing the full potential of rail?

I certainly am not. As I said in my statement, it is worth bearing in mind that last year Britain's railways carried more passengers than at any time since the early 1960s. That is a measure of their success. Despite all the difficulties railways are doing well. Although punctuality is not nearly as good as it should be, it is improving.

That is the success of privatisation.

No, it is not. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it has something to do with the phenomenal growth in our economy over the past seven years, as well as the not insubstantial sums of public money that are going into the railways. However, because someone will no doubt ask about it at some stage, I will give him this: several train operating companies have brought some flair into getting passengers to use them. I have always said that.

On the last point raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), he need have no fear. I gently point to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) may well ask why we have not built this line, that line or the next one, and we may say, "Yes, we will do as much as we can", but if they cut £1.8 billion from transport spending, they will not be able to build any of those lines.

In relation to the franchise length, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to award franchises that are of sufficient length to give companies an incentive. As I have said, we need to take into account not just costs and performance, but how a company behaves in the first part of its franchise. However, I am wary of moving to something like a 25-year franchise—indeed, I would net agree to that—which was suggested about 10 years ago. For example, the figures included in the Virgin franchises in 1995–96 have proved wildly optimistic. That does no one any good at all.

In relation to the financial obligations, I said in the statement and the White Paper says that they will transfer to the office of the Secretary of State.

My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the valuable role of community railways. I wonder whether he could expand on that, especially with regard to branch lines in rural areas, such as the west Cumbrian line and the Oxenholme to Windermere line. How will the White Paper affect them? What more local control will we have over the railways?

The White Paper deals with local community railways and refers to the recent SRA consultation. The idea is that certain railway lines, which may not be viable under the present system, could be operated much better. It does not include specific suggestions, but sets out a framework for decision making in the future. I have been impressed by the fact that a number of working community railway lines would almost certainly have been shut if they had not been transferred to the control of local people. That is something that I want to encourage.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the real concern felt in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) about the SRA's proposed cuts to the Maidstone to Ashford line. As a result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, will he confirm whether the Government's consultation with the Integrated Kent Franchise will still report as planned in the autumn?

I am well aware of the concerns in Kent about the current consultation. It is very clear that, whatever is proposed, if there is a difficulty in one part of the country or another, that is something for the SRA to resolve. I appreciate that it will be very difficult to resolve all the various conflicts, but, obviously, we must have a go. For the avoidance of doubt, the SRA will continue to be responsible for those matters until it is closed, probably in the second half of next year.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent response to the analysis in the Select Committee report, "The Future of the Railway". I particularly appreciate the devolution of both power and cash to passenger transport authorities, so that they can determine what goes on in their areas. A huge quantity of money is spent on heavy rail over which local people have no control or say, but will he assure me that waiting for the legislation to enable that transfer will not delay implementing the extension of the tram system in Greater Manchester?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He has long held the view that there ought to be greater openness, so that PTEs can take informed decisions about whether to provide heavy rail, light rail or bus services. There are a number of light rail schemes, but they are not dealt with specifically in the White Paper, which is about the proposed structure. I have always made the point that, in relation to any rail scheme—heavy or light—or indeed any other transport scheme, we must be satisfied that it stacks up and provides value for money.

One of our problems with light rail schemes, as my hon. Friend well knows, is that the costs have doubled in the past two or three years and what is proposed is half as much as originally planned. The Government cannot sign up to things that do not represent value for money. Some of the changes that I have announced today, whereby we are increasingly able to identify regional transport budgets, will ensure that PTEs and local authorities will also be able to make more informed judgments about where they are prepared to spend their money. That is obviously of interest to the Government.

I welcome the reduction in franchise numbers. I also warmly welcome the closer working relationship between operators and those who control the track. However, may I pick up the point, which was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), that the Secretary of State and the Government should consider the length of franchises? Unless the franchises are of a certain length, those companies will not be able to make the necessary investment in car parking facilities at stations. The need for safe, reliable parking at Macclesfield station is critical to getting people off the roads and into trains for journeys to Manchester or south to Birmingham and Stoke. Such investment is very important to my constituency.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Many train operating companies have not just put money into their trains and on-train services, but built car parks. and some run minibus and bus services to round up customers and take them to the stations every morning. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. I want to ensure that franchises are sufficiently long to encourage companies to stick in there and make that investment.

Past performance ought to be taken into account because we are entitled to ask, "Okay, what did you do for the first part of the franchise? What might you do in the second part?" Obviously, cost and performance are critically important. As I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my reservation is that, if the franchise is too long, the numbers bid sometimes become unrealistic, but I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and other hon. Members for the general welcome that they have given to our proposals. Indeed, the only sour note so far appears to have come from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).

I welcome transferring the SRA's responsibilities to the Secretary of State, but I am concerned, as the representative of a north-eastern Scottish constituency, that the funding given to the Scottish Executive to upgrade the line north of Edinburgh is sufficient. Colleagues and I have recently had discussions with the SRA, which has decoupled the prioritisation of investment north of Edinburgh, and we have had discussions with the Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive, and they have told us that they have no money. I hope that any devolution of responsibility will involve sufficient money to ensure that the much-needed investment in north-east Scotland's railway lines can go ahead soon.

I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend sets out in relation to the lines in the north-east of Scotland. Upgrading the line between the central belt and Aberdeen was an issue when I lived in Aberdeen in the 1970s—it is not new. In relation to what I propose in respect of Scotland, it is right, especially as most services in Scotland are discrete to Scotland, that the Scottish Executive ought to have a greater say, and they can decide to spend more or less. That is a decision that they should properly take.

In relation to rail finances generally, however, the House should understand that the cost of running the railway, especially now that we are clear about the state of the network, has risen very dramatically in the past five years or so. Although there will be improvements—a lot of money is going into the railways—obviously, choices must be made about what can be done and when, so people must be realistic about that.

I, too, welcome the statement, especially the part that relates to Scotland. We in the Scottish National party and our colleagues have argued long and hard that there has been an overwhelming case for the transfer of rail powers to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, to the Welsh Assembly. I am glad that the Secretary of State now sees the clarity of that case. Will he say a little more about how the resources will follow the transfer of powers? I am still unclear about how Scottish objectives will be pursued by the Scottish Executive. In his guise as the Secretary of State for Scotland, does he agree that, when it makes overwhelming sense to devolve such powers, as it does on the railways, he will continue to consider such cases in the future?

I am proposing a substantial change in the arrangements for the railways. Of course, the Scottish Executive got a very good settlement, consequential on the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made on Monday. It is obviously for the Scottish Executive to decide how to deploy those resources, and it is encouraging that they are now spending more than £1 billion on transport for the first time ever, I think. That is good news. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the fact that the reason why Scotland's expenditure is going up is that the Chancellor was able to make those resources available because of the strength of the UK economy. Of course, that would all be at risk with separation.

My right hon. Friend will know that I have raised the absence of a station at Ilkeston with him before. Indeed, it is the only town of its size in the east midlands that does not have a station. The Government are currently funding a link road to join the town with the motorway, so a station would make an ideal transport hub. In the light of his statement, what comfort can he give to my constituents that a station will arrive sooner rather than later?

Tempted though I am, I would probably be better not to make any specific promises. The White Paper deals with the structure and organisation necessary to run the railways rather than specifics. We will need to consider whether a station can be established in Ilkeston. We are spending a lot of money on the railways, but people must understand that the cost of running the railway and the regulatory review that took place at the end of last year have put a substantial pressure on our budget as a whole. Yes, we want improvements to transport across the piece, but we need to ensure that we bear down on costs because every time that we do that, additional money might be available to do other things. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind, but the White Paper does not deal with matters in such specific deal.

The Secretary of State tries to claim credit for the increase in passenger numbers over the past 40 years, but in reality, the dramatic increase was caused by the privatisation of the railways by the Conservative party. All the issues with which he is dealing relate to the success of privatisation. That needs to be stated because it is not said often enough.

The right hon. Gentleman might want to address the reality of the discontinuation of the Nottingham-Hinckley-Coventry line that goes through my constituency. He is now taking more powers for himself, so if I write to him will he undertake to examine Railfuture's proposal to reinstate an existing dive-under tunnel at Nuneaton?

Again, we are hearing a plea for more money to be spent on the railways. I return to this point: the Conservative party is committed to cutting £1.8 billion from the transport budget, so it is in no position to call for more money for a dive-in tunnel, a new station or anything because it would not make money available. As for what I said about additional passengers, I have never tried to claim credit for the transport system over the past 40 years—I was not responsible 40 years ago. What is happening now with our growing economy enabling more people to travel by our trains and additional public money for the railways is to the credit of the Government, but it is the shame of the official Opposition that they want to cut the amount spent.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and especially the extension of the Mayor's responsibilities for rail services in the Greater London area because of the increased integration that I believe that will deliver. Is he aware that my constituents have the fourth highest dependency on public transport services in the country and that we need the East London line to be extended? That is currently an SRA project that is expecting SRA funding, so can he give us any assurance that the long overdue project will go ahead?

As I said, the White Paper deals with the structure and organisation of the railways. As my hon. Friend knows, the SRA and the Department have been examining several projects, including the East London line and other London projects. I will be able to say something about those things, but I must be careful to remind hon. Members again that there are huge cost pressures on us. I have always made it clear that London's rail infrastructure needs to be extended, but we must consider how that is paid for and when it happens. Today's announcement was purely about the structure of the railways.

Will the Secretary of State explain how the Evening Standard was able to say with such confidence:

"Ken Livingstone is set to be handed control of the entire London rail network"?

It mysteriously seemed to know the content of the statement before it was given. In that context, will he expand a little further on the mysterious part of his statement saying,

"Many London commuter services run well outside the GLA boundary"?

Can he name any that do not?

In relation to the London Evening Standard, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman directs his comments to the editor rather than to me. I do not know why the story was written. The story in the first edition of the Standard is not right, as I said earlier. The right hon. Gentleman should actually read the White Paper, although I appreciate that that would require rather more effort than he sometimes applies to such matters, because he would see that the proposals are rather different from what appears in the Evening Standard. I am told, although I cannot promise the House of this, that the second edition is rather different.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the element about giving more powers to passenger transport authorities. If he is worried about whether the strategy will work, I refer him to the Merseyrail system. It was the worst train system in Britain, but since it transferred to the PTA, it has become the second best and most reliable service. Will he see whether he can support that scheme even more?

The White Paper refers specifically to Mersey Electrics and records what it has done. I know that its reliability is pretty good, but it is worth remembering that it has a discrete network, so it is fortunate that no other trains, apart from the odd freight train, go on to the lines. The arrangements for Merseytravel are set out, and my hon. Friend will have every reason to be happy with what is proposed.

Further to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), how will the new governance regime involving the London Mayor impinge on the Crossrail project? Does he intend to make a full statement on that subject before the end of the parliamentary Session?

I hope to be able to say something about Crossrail in the not too distant future.

I welcome most of my right hon. Friend's statement, but I am a little worried by his proposals on safety. Will he say a little more about why he has decided to move responsibility for safety from the independent health and safety inspectorate to the Office of Rail Regulation, and confirm that that is not being done because of cost pressures?

Absolutely not; safety is absolutely paramount. We thought about the transfer long and hard, and I tell my hon. Friend and the House that the ORR is as independent as the Health and Safety Executive. There is no question of safety being anything but independent from both the Government and the industry—that will remain.

We are undertaking the transfer because given everything that happened in the past, and especially due to European directives on safety, it is much better to have an organisation that can focus on railway safety. We can thus simplify the structure and apply ourselves to the risks faced by the industry. For example, although attention is obviously given to passenger fatalities due to people falling off trains, the vast majority of people killed on the railways are trespassing or suicides. The industry has not examined that risk sufficiently, so we need an organisation with a clear focus. I have, of course, discussed the matter with Bill Callaghan, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. Although his view was different to mine, he told me that he and the rail regulator will work closely to ensure that the transfer works. I will do nothing to prejudice that because I want the transfer to take place properly so that it will help people. I think, on balance, that my judgment is right.

I heard with great alarm that the Mayor for London might be allowed to become involved in commuter services starting outside London and running into London. Two such lines run through my constituency: the Southend-Fenchurch Street line run by c2c; and the Southend-Liverpool Street line, which is run by the renamed Great Eastern—it is now inexplicably called "one", which means that every carriage looks like a first-class carriage. Will the Minister explain what sort of powers the Mayor might be given?

I understand that people who read the first edition of the Standard might have got a wholly erroneous impression. I propose that there is room to give the Mayor a greater scope to specify what is needed for services that run wholly in the Greater London authority—I referred to the North London line, for example.

It is called the Northern line.

If the hon. Gentleman could contain himself for once, he might actually learn something. I appreciate that he has nothing worthwhile to say, so perhaps he should not say anything.

On commuter services that run outside London, the Mayor could say that he would like to pay for more services to stop within the London boundary. Conversely, people coming from, say, Southend might want a fast service into London with few stops. Reconciling those two interests will require plenty of discussion. I have made it clear, both in the White Paper and my statement, that the rights and expectations of people living outside London must be taken into account. There is no question of the Mayor being given control of those services outside his area. If there is an argument for providing more stopping trains and to provide more services, the question is whether that could be accommodated. I would have thought that that required a common-sense approach, not the scaremongering in which the hon. Lady's colleagues are indulging.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his excellent statement, but on the negotiations that he undertook with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on transport spending? May I also be the first Back-Bench Member to thank, as the Secretary of State did, the staff of the Strategic Rail Authority for their work in preparing the way forward for Britain's railways? In particular, I draw attention to the leadership of Richard Bowker, especially on community rail partnerships and the blueprint outlined.

On freight, does my right hon. Friend propose to undertake discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to improve the transport planning arrangements to allow depots to provide access for more goods to go on to the rail network?

Order. I appeal for very short questions and precise answers. I am letting the statement run beyond the original time estimated so that all hon. Members get called.

In relation to my hon. Friend's three points, I am always grateful to the Chancellor. That does not, however, get us away from the fact that our budgets are still under pressure. I want freight to be encouraged. Indeed, I am greatly encouraged by the freight companies that have made it clear that they want to go out and win new business. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about Richard Bowker.

Does the Secretary of State understand that there will be considerable concern in Worcestershire about his proposal to extend the powers of the passenger transport executives? We have such poor commuter services because Birmingham and the conurbation specify their services in preference to Worcestershire commuters. Given that he is also talking of giving the Welsh Assembly powers for services bordering Wales, many of which come to Worcestershire, we could be hit by a double whammy. In addition, I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question he did not answer—

Order. No, I do not think that we will have an extra question.

My proposals on devolution are primarily directed at those services that operate within the areas covered by PTEs and so on. In all parts of the network, there are obviously choices to be made and decisions to be taken between services that run within a local area and those that run further afield. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for one minute, I might be able to answer his question.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the tension between people who live well away from PTE areas who rely on services that go into those areas. That is obviously something that we need to reconcile, a point that I made earlier.

My right hon. Friend's decision to pin down the bureaucracy and to provide a clear strategic framework for the railways, and his ability to win extra money from the Treasury to deliver the strategy will be widely welcomed in a railway town like York. Now that the parameters have been set, when will the SRA publish the route utilisation strategy for the east coast main line and when will the refranchising formally start?

I hope that the answer to both those questions is "shortly". It is most important that the change does not hold up developments that need to be put in place to ensure that the railways operate over the next few years. I hope that we can do those two things as soon as possible.

May I give credit where credit is due? Today's announcement shows that the Secretary of State is slowly but surely reinventing a much improved British Rail. Unfortunately. he has not gone far enough in bringing the train operating companies back into public ownership. However, will he at least end the private sector preference, so that if the public sector is operating successfully—as it is with south-east trains—it is not forced into the private sector?

Not for the first time I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We are not re-creating British Rail and I think that the public-private partnership works. The performance of south-east trains is improving, but so is the performance of a number of other train operators operating around London. I am afraid that we will have to disagree—but nothing new there.

Will the new arrangements make it easier for disused railway lines to be reopened, or is the shape of the network to be entirely with Network Rail?

The Government have to decide how much they spend and the general overall strategy for the railways. Network Rail, through its industry planning process, will have to decide whether markets mean that new lines might be profitable or old lines might change. That happens with all types of transport because it is necessary to take account of where people are.

If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is referring to community railway lines. They have been successful in keeping lines open that might otherwise have closed. That is acknowledged in the White Paper and we want to build on it.

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 19 JULY—Remaining stages of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]. Followed by motion to approve the Draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2004, followed by remaining stages of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 20 JULY—A debate on Iraq on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill, followed by if necessary further consideration of Lords amendments. It may also assist the House if I confirm that there will be a statement about the findings of the balance of funding review report.

WEDNESDAY 21 JULY—A motion to approve three regional assembly and local government referendums orders, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

THURSDAY 22 JULY—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment.

The provisional business for the week following the summer recess will include:

TUESDAY 7 SEPTEMBER—Second Reading of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for September will be:

THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the EU's new chemical strategy.

THURSDAY 16 SEPTEMBER—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on postal voting.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

Although we are pleased that it is possible to have the capping of local authorities debated on the Floor of the House next Monday, as is normal practice, it is wrong that only an hour and a half is to be allowed when five councils and one fire authority are involved. May we have more time for that debate?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many last-minute amendments on new matters were tabled by the Minister when the Energy Bill was discussed on Report this week, which meant that other hon. Members were unable to have their amendments discussed before the guillotine fell? When will the Leader of the House stop that sort of abuse?

Now that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill has completed all its stages, will the right hon. Gentleman implement the Westminster boundary review for Scotland by laying the order before we rise?

Finally, I ask for a debate on the Butler report. It was made to Parliament and should be debated here, just like the Hutton report and the Penrose report. The Prime Minister has a poor record of making speeches here, but we do need a detailed speech from him in response to the report. He needs to address the flaws in intelligence and the way in which he conducts Cabinet business.

Lord Butler says that Downing street stretched intelligence "to the outer limits". He says that the 45-minute claim should not have been in the dossier at all. Throughout the dossier, serious misgivings about the intelligence were taken out. Who took them out? How could the Prime Minister then tell the country that the intelligence was "beyond doubt"? How could he tell this House that it was "extensive, detailed and authoritative" when we know that it was "little", "sporadic" and "patchy"?

The people of this country are entitled to believe their Prime Minister as he leads us into war. Can that ever be the case again—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is calling for a debate. We should not be holding it now.

We need a debate in Government time, led by the Prime Minister, before the House rises.

Well, that was a bit of windy rhetoric, was it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Before I respond to it, I shall deal with the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not accept that an hour and a half on council capping is insufficient. The matter has been debated regularly in the House and this will be an appropriate way in which to deal with it. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about Government amendments to the Energy Bill. Obviously, I share with him the desire to minimise the tabling of Government amendments to any Bill, especially at a late stage, including on Report. I also regret that other amendments were not discussed. On the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, no, there will not be an order brought before the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until an appropriate time for that.

I shall now deal with the substance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. There will be a debate on Iraq on Tuesday, as I have already announced, in which there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the Butler report. Indeed, I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary will make reference to it in his opening speech. He will obviously take interventions on that matter, and any Members who catch the eye of the Chair will be able to make their points.

I refute categorically the suggestion that the House has not had an opportunity to discuss Iraq. The Prime Minister has made a whole series of statements on Iraq and other matters. He also opened the debate on the Hutton report, at the request of the Opposition, among others. He has held himself accountable to the House more than any other Prime Minister, to the extent that, for the very first time, we had a debate and a vote authorising the decision to go to war, which was carried by a clear majority. So the idea that Parliament has somehow been bypassed in this process is absolute nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Butler report represents the typically opportunistic stance of the Conservatives, who have consistently supported the action in Iraq. I could add to the quotations from the Leader of the Opposition on that matter which were repeated by the Prime Minister yesterday, but I shall spare the hon. Gentleman's pain. Frankly, if there is an issue of credibility involved, it is the shifty opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that the voters in the by-elections today and in future will pronounce their verdict on that shifty opportunism. If there is a credibility problem, then it is the Leader of the Opposition who has a credibility problem on Iraq, the Butler report and just about everything else.

I welcome the proposed statement on the balance of funding review. I also welcome the Adjournment debate on Iraq next week. It was clear from the statement and the comments made yesterday that there was palpable frustration in the House that some Members could not express their views at that time, and I hope that next week's debate will provide an opportunity for the large number of Members—whether they were for or against the war, and whether they are pleased or displeased with the outcome—to affirm their anger that they were led into war on false assumptions. I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for that opinion to be expressed.

Will the Leader of the House tell us who will summate in that debate? It is important that the Government should have an opportunity to explain, in response to Butler's finding that "serious errors" were made, who individually carries responsibility, when it has been stated that there was collective blame. Will the Foreign Secretary be the person to convey a definitive answer to that question?

Butler raises a wider question, on which the Leader of the House is perhaps the best person to report back to us. If there was a failure of what has been called an informal system of governance, in terms of the way in which the Cabinet functioned and made decisions, will we have a report presented to us, either through a statement or a debate, on how Cabinet government and its reporting procedures are to be improved?

Switching to another subject, a large number of Members on both sides of the House are concerned that schools are being built and transport systems improved by private finance initiative contractors—particularly Jarvis, which is on the brink of bankruptcy. Indeed, we might come back to Parliament in the autumn faced with serious disruption to building programmes if that company does go bankrupt. Is the Leader of the House in a position to say whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills or another Minister will be able to make a statement on that before the House breaks up?

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Health referred to the serious problems arising from MRSA in hospitals and has now acknowledged that this is a major problem in the health service. Can we have a full statement and debate on this, as there is widespread frustration in the House that, although this issue has been raised by me and many other Members over the last six or seven years, it has taken all this time for it to become a top priority issue for the Secretary of State and for action to be taken? Can we have a fuller explanation of what action is being taken on this matter?

On Iraq and the Butler report, there has been an honest difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on this matter. I accept that the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose the action that the Government took; they did so honestly, just as we acted honestly, and there should be a mutual recognition of the honesty of each other's position. That is in stark contrast to the opportunism of the Conservatives, who were actually urging us to go to war before the United Nations passed resolution 1441. In fact, they were inciting us to go to war without the authority of the United Nations, before that process broke down. At least the Liberal Democrats have maintained a consistent position on the issue, although that is about all I can say for it. It has yet to be decided who will reply to the debate on Iraq, but I shall obviously take into account the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in that regard.

On the Cabinet the Butler report made it perfectly clear that the decision making and the style of the Cabinet was no less effective, to quote the Butler report, compared with other Governments. There were 24 Cabinet discussions on Iraq, many of which I attended after my promotion to the Cabinet. There were 25 key meetings of Ministers and officials, and that is apart from the war Cabinet itself. So there was full consultation, every Cabinet Minister had the opportunity to speak, and at the end of that process we came to Parliament and sought the approval of Parliament in the first ever vote on whether to go to war. Any questioning of the decision making is therefore simply unacceptable.

I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have actually read the Butler report. Perhaps I should read one of its conclusions, which states that

"we have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:

a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including"—

Order. I think that I ought to say to the Leader of the House what I said to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We cannot go into the details of that debate at this time.

I am I happy not to go into the details, in that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

On MRSA, we were the first to introduce a mandatory system for collecting reports of bloodstream infections. It was introduced in 2001, and it was much needed, given what went on before, including under the previous Conservative Government. Improved cleanliness is obviously an important part of tackling this problem, but it will not be tackled by that alone. I remind the House that it was the previous Conservative Government who privatised hospital cleaning and contracted it out so that low costs were the order of the day, rather than high quality. We have sought to reverse that. On PFI contracts, I will certainly draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Has my friend seen early-day motion 1512 on Cabinet decision making, which stands in my name?

[That this House notes with unease Lord Butler's observations on page 147 of his report concerning the nature of Cabinet discussions on Iraq; is dismayed that while a small number of key Ministers met frequently, no papers were circulated to the full Cabinet or to a Cabinet committee despite the fact that "excellent quality papers" were written by officials and that information given to Cabinet ministers outside the inner circle and in the Cabinet forum was solely by way of oral briefings by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary; further notes that Lord Butler's conclusion that this practice "reduced Cabinet Ministers' ability to prepare properly for such discussions" and this reduced "the scope for informed collective political judgement"; deplores the way in which vital decisions on war and peace were taken on the full authority of the Cabinet but without the active participation and engagement of all its members; and calls on the Head of the Home Civil Service and the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to Parliament that the concerns expressed by Lord Butler in the machinery of Government will be fully addressed.]

It is not just the Liberal Democrats who are exercised about this matter: 147 Labour Members voted against the war. PowerPoint presentations to Cabinet Ministers can be no substitute for considered background papers circulated in advance so that Cabinet Ministers can make an informed judgment on important decisions such as going to war.

It is always nice to know that we have the support of my hon. Friend on these matters. I want to say to him frankly and bluntly that I was in the Cabinet during many of those discussions. They took a great deal of time over many meetings—indeed, there were 24 Cabinet discussions on the matter. as I said earlier. There was a great deal of probing of all the issues, and the idea that the Cabinet was some kind of sop in regard to the decision that was made is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend ought to withdraw that suggestion.

May we please debate who should set up committees of inquiry? Is it not now obvious that a committee established by the Prime Minister—the chairman was appointed by the Prime Minister, the terms of reference were written by the Prime Minister and the members all got privy councillorships before it started—is not a satisfactory way in which to achieve a truthful outcome? I suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be better if all future committees of inquiry were appointed solely and entirely by the House of Lords.

The right hon. Gentleman's question is eccentric and predictable. Is he impugning the integrity and credibility of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who served on the Butler inquiry? We have had the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, an independent inquiry headed by a judge—the Hutton report—and now the Butler inquiry, which was headed by a former Cabinet Secretary. Those four inquiries produced 1,056 pages of material and 500,000 words of analysis. None of the charges made by any critics of the Prime Minister or the Government has been sustained, and the critics should shut up, put up and accept the result of those four inquiries.

Will the Leader of the House inform hon. Members why the business for September, which he announced today, does not include the topic of hunting with dogs? As I understand it, unless the topic is brought back in the House today, it will not be debated in the September session because one parliamentary month must pass before a Bill can be debated under the Parliament Acts.

I think that my hon. Friend will find that he is not right on that point. I have announced today all the business that I can confirm at this stage. A considerable period of the Session remains, and I do not necessarily expect to make an announcement before the House rises for the recess. However, hon. Members know that I have repeatedly made strong commitments in this House, and those commitments to resolve the issue will be honoured.

Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the powers of coroners' courts? An inquest begins in Hatfield today into the death of the son of one of my constituents, who was killed when he was struck by a lorry on the A1. Because the company that owns the lorry and the lorry driver are domiciled abroad, however, the coroner cannot bring the lorry driver to the coroner's court to answer questions. If the Leader of the House agrees that that is an anomaly, I wonder whether he can find time for us to debate and discuss the matter.

The issue is obviously serious, and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will want to pay close attention to that point and will hope to support the hon. Gentleman in taking the matter forward.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1497, which describes the astonishing decision by the Conservative council in Calderdale to appoint a British National party member to its racial equality and community cohesion working party?

[That this House condemns the decision by Calderdale Council's Conservative Cabinet to appoint a BNP councillor to the Racial Equality and Community Cohesion Working Party; congratulates the Halifax Evening Courier on its campaign and vocal opposition to this appointment; believes that the people of Calderdale will not support this decision; and calls upon Calderdale Council's Conservative Cabinet to reverse this decision which is at best shortsighted, and at worst provocative and offensive towards ethnic minorities in Calderdale.]

In view of the television programme, which is due to be shown tonight, that apparently includes film of BNP members fantasising about machine-gunning worshipers at mosques with a million bullets, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we had a debate in this House on the activities of the BNP, on the Conservative party's position towards the BNP and, in particular, on the BNP's contribution to racial equality and community cohesion?

I agree with my hon. Friend on that matter. One of the BNP members who appears in the BBC film is quoted in The Sun this morning:

"My dream is to have a Transit van with a machine gun in the back, you know like they have in the back of the helicopters, with about a million bullets. All wired up to it, just open the doors outside the mosque on a Friday afternoon when they are all coming out."

That is a statement of the vilest kind from a vile party of Nazis and thugs, and the sooner we confront it and beat it, the better. The organisation has long-standing criminal connections, and we should wipe it off the electoral landscape by taking it on at the ballot box. West Yorkshire police takes those claims seriously, and it will consider whether sufficient evidence exists to prosecute. It is also important that the House reaffirms our support for the rights of all individuals to worship Islam, which is one of the world's greatest religions. The Government respect and value the major economic and cultural contribution that the British Muslim community makes to our country.

Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the number of Government decisions that are not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny because they are made using the royal prerogative? Is he aware that his Department keeps no central record of how many such decisions each Department makes? Will he therefore ask the Modernisation Committee, of which he is the Chairman, to look into ways of making the use of the royal prerogative subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

That is an interesting and novel constitutional question. On the question whether to go to war in Iraq, the Government abandoned the tradition of deciding to make war by royal prerogative and came to the House to seek its consent in a vote. I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's points in mind, but the British constitution has long relied, for good or ill, on the royal prerogative.

As someone whose constituency lies outside London, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in recognising the professional service delivered by the staff in the House of Commons Travel Office. He knows that that service could be jeopardised by the change of supplier; will he use his influence to make sure that the new supplier protects those staff, their jobs and their conditions and, more importantly, that the service delivered to hon. Members is not compromised?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point of which the Administration Committee will want to take careful note. I do not want to see the future of any staff jeopardised in the way that he fears, and those staff will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I use the Travel Office and confirm that the staff do a fine job—we all rely on their expertise and professionalism.

Will the Leader of the House indicate what progress, if any, has been made on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting on occasions in the Province itself? The issue is especially important given the continued absence of devolution in Northern Ireland.

That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has raised it properly, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want to take it into account.

I am sure that you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Cook of the Office for National Statistics cannot count. Mr. Cook has got the population figure for Manchester wrong by nearly 7 per cent. and has made similar mistakes on about 20 other towns, cities and boroughs around the country, which obviously impacts on funding streams. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made a rational and sensible decision to adjust its funding figures for local government in Manchester and other places because of those mistakes. Unfortunately and incredibly, however, the Department of Health has not adjusted its figures, so the health service in Manchester will probably be underfunded by £20 million. Does my right hon. Friend not think that time should be found to discuss that extraordinary situation, in which two Departments are responding to the same statistical mistake in different ways?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in raising the matter. The Secretary of State for Health and the Deputy Prime Minister will want carefully to reflect on the implications for funding and services in Manchester.

Following this week's announcement that the Government are to sack more than 100,000 of their own civil servants, which is more than 10 per cent. of the payroll, in the interests of equity, may we have an early debate on how we might attain a commensurate reduction in the number of Ministers?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of Ministers has been pretty constant and the limit is defined on a statutory basis. He also knows that this is part of a programme of transferring staff from back-office functions, especially with the use of new technology and efficiency measures, to deliver extra front-line services. That is an objective that the people of Britain will applaud and it stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, who repeatedly cut front-line services in health, education, policing and just about everything that matters to people.

On the Hunting Bill, is not the position that, if the Parliament Acts are to be used, as the large majority of Labour MPs want, the measure rejected by the Lords will have to be sent back to the Lords one month before the end of the present Session? Is my right hon. Friend aware that not disclosing when the Parliament Act will be used, or if it is to be used at all, will lead to growing disappointment and worry that we will repeat the situation in the last Parliament and that, despite the large majority in favour of banning hunting with dogs, no effort will be made to ensure that the measure becomes an Act during this Parliament? The only way of doing that is through he Parliament Acts, and time is getting very short indeed.

I am not sure that time is getting as short as my hon. Friend suggests. We are well aware of the timetabling issues concerned. I have little to add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), other than to repeat that, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we intend to resolve the issue in this Parliament.

The Leader of the House will understand that some of us who voted against the war did so because we did not believe what the Prime Minister said. Many others, on both sides of the House, did not follow us in that because they did believe what the Prime Minister said. I put this to the Leader of the House as someone who cares passionately about it: if we are to discuss the issue properly, we need the Prime Minister here so that he can explain very clearly why he told the House that he had assurance when he clearly did not have that assurance. That is absolutely clear from the Butler report.

The fact that the Prime Minister is not coming to the House is the main issue for those of us who voted against the war. Can we please have an understanding that he will come to the House so that those of us who were not even able to ask a question will at least be able to hear him explain what for many of us is one of the most disgraceful elements of this Government?

I understand and respect the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. As his vote demonstrated, he honestly and clearly took a different opinion on whether Britain should have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein, and that is fine. But the Prime Minister came to the House yesterday to make a detailed statement and to answer detailed questions, and he was challenged in detail on all these matters. That is what he did in the debate on the Hutton report and has done consistently in Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to rerun his basic and fundamental disagreement with the Government—which is on a matter of principle, and I respect that—in the face of four independent inquiries that covered half a million words and more than 1,000 pages and which disagreed with the fundamental proposition of the right hon. Gentleman and critics of the war: that the Government acted in a disingenuous fashion. We did not. We saw the evidence—the Prime Minister saw it and I saw it—and we acted honestly on it. That is the situation.

Tomorrow, the schools break up for the summer holidays. When we return in September, would it be a good idea to examine the behaviour of some young boys over the summer months? In my area, they have been using replica guns and air rifles as a source of entertainment. Should not the House have an opportunity to discuss restrictions on air rifles and the possible banning of replica guns?

That is an important issue, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in many others where youngsters are acting in an extremely antisocial fashion. It is a great shame that some Members of this House, especially the Liberal Democrats, have voted consistently against tough laws to clamp down on youth yobbery, including that which she describes. In the end, that weakness in the face of antisocial behaviour will be judged harshly by the voters.

Will the Leader of the House give favourable consideration to holding a debate on the importance of savings to our economy? It is clear that the Government are not really interested in promoting savings, because their current economic position is underpinned by high personal indebtedness, an overheating housing sector, steeply increased public expenditure and very high consumer spending. Will not the Government's neglect of the importance of savings be at the top of the charge sheet when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves out of No. 11?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's charge. People right across Britain, of all incomes and ages, are enjoying greater prosperity and economic stability than in recent living memory.

On debt, whether in the case of mortgages or other loans, the very low interest rates mean that the proportion of people's disposable income that is required to fund those loans and mortgages is much lower than it has been in the past. That is the benefit of low interest rates, low inflation, continued growth and continued high employment that we have benefited from under a Labour Government compared with the shabby record of the Conservatives.

When will the Leader of the House find time to debate a review of land legislation that allows property companies such as Warborough Investments to become freeholders of community centres, such as Forrestdale Forum, for thousand of pounds, then to threaten and intimidate lay trustees with forfeiture of the lease, with the consequence of realising hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of profits by an unencumbered freehold, as they did in Brent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the law and local councils should protect community centres, which provide such valuable family and social facilities, from property companies armed with teams of aggressive lawyers?

The account that my hon. Friend gives the House is disturbing. Nobody in those circumstances should be intimidated or threatened as he describes. Community centres do a valuable job in serving local communities and should enjoy the respect of everybody concerned.

Will the Leader of the House look again at the business for next Tuesday, when the Welsh Grand Committee is due to debate the draft Transport (Wales) Bill? As Secretary of State for Wales, the Leader of the House will be aware that that Bill transfers powers to the National Assembly from the Strategic Rail Authority, which the Secretary of State for Transport has just abolished. As we will have another opportunity next Tuesday to look again at rail infrastructure in Wales, and to welcome the Secretary of State's announcement earlier today, which follows Plaid Cymru policies, can we widen that debate to discuss how those new ideas can be properly funded in Wales? What is the Leader of the House going to do with the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, which now looks rather redundant?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of following Plaid Cymru policy—that would send us up a closed branch line. As regards the Transport (Wales) Bill, we were well aware of the impending announcement on the rail review by the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was taken to introduce the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we are aware that amendments may be required, either in the Bill itself or through technical amendments to the Strategic Rail Authority legislation that will be necessary to implement the White Paper. These matters are being taken closely into account, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to probe the issue in the Welsh Grand Committee.

The Leader of the House will no doubt be surprised to hear that ambulance drivers regularly receive speeding tickets as part of their life-saving work, and even more surprised that ambulance trusts around the country spend £1 million a year to resolve that issue. After a 37-year blemish-free career with the ambulance service, my constituent, Mick Ferguson, was under threat of prosecution for 10 months. On his behalf, and on that of his wife, Ann, and the GMB, his union, who supported him through that trauma, I warmly welcome last week's announcement by Department of Health Ministers that they intend to end that anomaly and to indemnify ambulance staff showing the blue light. We need a statement to the House so that we can unpick the detail of the announcement. When does it start, and does it apply to private ambulance companies as well as NHS—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must practise asking more concise questions. I think that the Leader of the House has the gist.

I share my hon. Friend's frustration, as do the Government, which is why the Department of Health is working alongside the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to resolve the problem. Indeed, a new protocol is being drawn up by ACPO, as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), announced when she spoke at the annual conference of the Ambulance Service Association on 2 July. She will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said and will, I am sure, be able to clarify the position in due course.

Can we have an early statement on the Government's policy of allowing the destruction of green belt land in metropolitan areas where it really counts, and replacing it with green belt in areas where there is little pressure for development? I have been pursuing statistics on that policy since 2 March, when I received a reply from a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister telling me that I would shortly receive a response with statistics. I tabled further written questions in May and June, only to be told that I would receive a reply as soon as possible. I could easily come to the conclusion that the Government have something to hide unless they make a statement in the near future.

It is nonsense to suggest that we have anything to hide. We have a great deal to be proud of, as we are making much more use of brownfield sites to construct more housing and developments. The suggestion that we are about to destroy the green belt is a fabrication, albeit unintentional, from the hon. Gentleman. However, he got caught up in his own rhetoric, and for the record, we reject it entirely.

May we have a debate as soon as possible on an issue that is often hidden, but is probably the most significant one in many Welsh valley communities—incapacity benefit? There is considerable evidence to suggest that once people are on incapacity benefit for eight months, they are likely to be on it for at least eight years. Most people who start off with minor illnesses end up with serious ones. Can we have a thorough reform of incapacity benefit so that it is not a passport to poor health and low income but enables people to get back into work?

My hon. Friend is right to identify a central problem in valley communities such as the ones that he and I represent in south Wales. It is because a large proportion of people are on incapacity benefit that the Government have introduced a number of pilots, working with individuals on benefit to find ways of allowing them to get back into work. Those pilots have been hugely successful, and the Department for Work and Pensions intends to roll out a much bigger programme to encourage people on incapacity benefit to end their dependency on benefit, get jobs and enjoy better health, thus securing greater opportunities and prosperity.