With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on prospects for the European Union in the next year.

Twelve months ago, I made several proposals to the House to improve the way in which the Government are held to account for the conduct of European Union business. One was the publication of regular White Papers on "Prospects for the European Union", the first of which I published in April last year. As with the White Papers that I published on the EU constitution negotiations, I hope that hon. Members feel that the fuller and more timely information on EU business has helped to stimulate wider debate and discussion. Such discussion shapes and strengthens the Government's position in European negotiations. Consistent with the pledges that I made last year, I have published White Paper Cm. 6450, which sets out the prospects for the European Union in 2005. Copies have been available from the Vote Office since 9.30 this morning.

Let me highlight three of the main areas of work that the White Paper covers: enhancing prosperity across Europe and in this country; working together to tackle common threats to our security; and preparations for the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU in the second half of this year.

In the European Union, Britain is part of the world's largest common market of 450 million consumers. That gives new opportunities to our businesses, greater choice and quality to British consumers and boosts jobs and growth here and across Europe. However, there is much more to do to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from that single market by pursuing further liberalisation and reform.

We will therefore continue negotiating a directive to liberalise services across the EU. Services account for approximately 70 per cent. of the EU's output, but only 20 per cent. of its trade. Creating a true single market in that sector would boost growth in the EU and improve the price, choice and quality of services on offer to businesses and consumers. The Government are also working for better implementation and enforcement of the financial services action plan, which offers great benefits in another sector where this country is especially strong.

We are also working to ensure that EU law—so vital for the operation of the single market—is the most effective possible for business. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced 12 months ago, the Government have been working closely with the Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg presidencies on regulatory reform in Europe. We have now extended that team work to include the Austrians and Finns, who follow us in the EU presidency next year.

I also greatly welcome the strong lead from Commission President Barroso, whose five-year plan published on 26 January made it clear that better regulation is a priority for the new Commission. We will be working with the Commission to ensure that we have a better assessment of the impact of new proposals and systematic reviews of existing EU legislation.

The White Paper also highlights the continuing negotiations on the European Union's budget. The Government are working especially with Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden to ensure that future EU budgets are limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's economic output and that that money is spent where it most adds value. We also continue to make it clear that the United Kingdom's budget abatement remains fully justified. We, like all other countries, have a veto on any changes proposed in that area.

As well as dealing with the economic aspects of our EU membership, the White Paper also sets out many areas in which our common work in Europe makes the United Kingdom safer and more secure. It shows how we are improving co-operation between police forces and other authorities so as better to tackle international organised crime and terrorism across national borders. It highlights our work to ensure that European measures to stop asylum shopping and to create a level playing field on asylum across the whole of the EU are properly implemented and evaluated. It also describes work on concluding readmission agreements with countries outside the European Union.

The coming year will be an important one for the EU's crisis management and aid operations, which make a direct contribution to our own security. The largest European Union mission to date will help to build stability in Bosnia, under a British commander, Major-General David Leakey. EU police missions will continue to work in Bosnia, Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A new European defence agency, under a British chief executive, Nick Witney, will increase Europe's capacity more quickly to deploy effective forces in response to international crises and ensure that they can work better together.

The Government will continue to play a leading part, along with our colleagues in France and Germany, in Europe's efforts to ensure that Iran's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes alone. What we have achieved to date, with Iran suspending the processes that could produce fuel for a nuclear bomb, demonstrates the value of this common approach.

The EU is the largest provider of development assistance in the world. As well as delivering Europe's contribution to reconstruction in the areas hit by the tsunami in Asia, we will work to strengthen the European Union's work to support Africa—one of our key G8 priorities.

As I have mentioned, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the European Union from 1 July this year. Our presidency will focus on the themes of security, stability and prosperity, both within the European Union and outside. Africa and climate change—the priorities of our concurrent presidency of the G8—will be important parts of that EU agenda. We will continue to push for economic reform and better regulation in Europe to deliver long-term improvements in growth. We will also steer preparations for the next stage in the world trade negotiations.

This White Paper makes clear, as did its predecessors, the central importance for the United Kingdom of our work throughout, and with, the European Union. It also shows Britain delivering in Europe—delivering because we are engaged with our partners on issues that no country can tackle alone. This Government are proud to have put Britain back where we belong—not carping from the sidelines, but a leading power in Europe. We are winning clear benefits for British consumers, British businesses and British families in areas that make a real difference to their lives.

Through Europe, we are increasing Britain's power and influence in the world. Our approach has helped us to deliver the European Union's greatest ever enlargement and agreement to historic membership negotiations with Turkey, which will begin in October under our presidency. It has got us a European Commission that has made jobs, growth and better regulation a top priority. It has also got us European defence arrangements that work with, not against, NATO, and European co-operation on foreign policy that is again delivering significant results, not least those that we saw recently in Ukraine.

Again thanks to this Government's approach, we have delivered a constitutional treaty that every other country in Europe is calling a great British success. I look forward to debating the facts of that treaty, not the myths of the Conservative party, in the months ahead.

Ten years ago, this country was isolated in Europe. Today, we are where we belong: leading reform in Europe and working together to enhance Britain's prosperity and power. That is the difference between this Government and those who want to detach us from Europe—a difference that is clear from this White Paper. We are confident about Britain's future in Europe and determined to continue shaping that future in the interests of businesses and individuals across the United Kingdom. I commend the White Paper to the House.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and, I must say, for very short advance sight of it.

I am puzzled by the reasons for this statement. The publication of the first such White Paper on 20 April last year was merely announced in passing by the Prime Minister in a wider statement explaining his somersault on the referendum. No detailed explanation was given to Parliament. Why is this statement needed today, particularly as the Foreign Secretary had nothing new to say? Is not the reason that the Government are involved in a taxpayer-subsidised propaganda exercise to try to sell the new EU to the country in advance of the forthcoming referendum and general election?

The Foreign Secretary refers somewhat disingenuously in his introduction to the White Paper to stimulating

"closer and deeper involvement of . . . the general public, in EU affairs".

Can he explain how, in the course of that stimulation, the general public are to become more closely and deeply involved in European affairs? This document, replete—extraordinarily—with five and a half pages of a glossary of Euro-speak, is in truth designed to lull the British people into a false sense of security.

Let me give one example. At page 5, the White Paper claims that the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe

"will make Europe . . . easier to understand".

Yet the Government last week had to publish a commentary of 500 pages to try to explain this easy and simple constitution to the British people. Who are they trying to kid?

One or two matters of detail arise out of this White Paper. Is there really a need for a "new European Gender Institute", referred to on page 14, in paragraph 37? What on earth is wrong with our Equal Opportunities Commission? Is this not yet another example of unnecessary European interference and empire building? Will not this new institute duplicate work to be carried out by yet another new European institution, the human rights agency, to which paragraph 63 refers?

While we are on that agency, why did the Commission, in its recent consultation paper, refer to it not as the human rights agency but as "the Fundamental Rights Agency"? What is the difference? Are the Government merely trying to hide the implications of the inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights, which they have tried so hard over the last few months to play down? Does not paragraph 51 confirm a further encroachment of the EU into areas of fundamental national jurisdiction, namely matters of criminal justice? Does not that fly in the face of previous Government promises that such matters would remain outside Community competence?

At paragraph 56, does not the support of qualified majority voting in matters of immigration and asylum fly in the face of the Prime Minister's boast in 1997 to the House, in relation to QMV, that

"we secured unanimity in all the areas where we wanted it, such as immigration".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 319.]

Given that the Government have opted into every directive on asylum, is not the assertion in that same paragraph that the

"UK . . . retains the right not to participate in EU asylum . . . provisions"

meaningless?

At paragraph 81, the Foreign Secretary refers to the work that he was doing in Iran. Why is his view of Iran so different from that expressed by the President of the United States in his State of the Union address last night? Has he taken into account, for instance, the reports in today's newspapers that Ukraine has in the past sold long-range missiles to Iran? While we are on the subject of Ukraine, why is the Foreign Secretary so lukewarm about Ukraine's attempts to open negotiations to become part of the European Union?

Paragraph 85 deals with EU-China. Precisely what improvements in China's human rights record since Tiananmen square justify the Government's current support for the lifting of the arms embargo?

Page 11 makes much of the Lisbon agenda. We have long warned that that agenda could easily become all about failed targets and today we see with regret how right we were. Halfway through the 10-year programme, little has been achieved and, as the White Paper itself acknowledges, the prosperity and productivity gap in relation to the United States is widening. In the White Paper, the Government describe that as "falling short of expectations". In the "EUobserver" on 2 February, Wim Kok described the goal of the agenda as "a bridge too far". But was not Romano Prodi nearer the truth last October when he described it quite simply as "a big failure"? Yet the White Paper merely promises more of the same.

Is it not the case that the real engine of prosperity and growth is deregulation, competition and a genuinely free market? Is it not also the case that the social model acts as a break on that engine, and is that not why the EU is failing economically? Yet the White Paper offers a lot more talk and no action.

The Foreign Secretary knows well that the prospects for the EU in the coming year will remain uncertain until the outcome of the EU-wide process of ratification of the constitution is known. Yet now we hear that the Government intend to put off the referendum in this country until the latest possible date next year. Prolonging the uncertainty can only be bad for the EU. Why do the Government not have the courage of their convictions and hold the referendum now? Why do they not realise that this country will have no part in the constitution, and begin to build an EU that will work for its peoples rather than its elites?

After May, when we are on the other side of the House, we will waste no time in clearing up this uncertainty.

The self-deprecating smile on the face of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as he mouthed his last point said it all. It was clear that not even he believes such nonsense. One reason why he does not believe it is that, as someone who throughout his political career—until he became deputy leader of the Conservative party—was an ardent supporter of Britain in Europe who not only voted for Maastricht but spoke up for it, he knows very well that Europe above all other issues has wrecked the Tory party and removed its prospects of power for well over a decade.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the statement was needed. I refer him to a statement I made early last year, when I told the House that in my judgment the British Government ought to be more accountable to the House for what they do in regard to European Union business. I made a series of proposals, one of which was regular publication of these White Papers and an oral statement to accompany those published annually. That is why I am here now, and I find it astonishing that he is running so scared of the facts about our record in Europe that he does not want the issue to be discussed.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the new gender institute. Of all the issues that he could have highlighted, he fixed on that one. I will tell him why the institute is needed. Even the Conservatives' policy for the European Union accepts the free movement of workers and of people. That means that in increasing numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about this, so I am trying to explain. In increasing numbers, British workers will be working abroad. If they happen to be women, they ought to be entitled to the same protection that they can enjoy here. I should have thought that that was commendable, not a matter for regret.

The same applies to the human rights agency. No, it will not duplicate the work of our own agencies. Indeed, we are far more advanced in terms of gender equality— as we are in terms of race and religious relations—than most, if not all, other European countries. However, it is of great value to our people abroad to be able to secure some minimal protection if they are subject to gender or racial discrimination.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about judicial co-operation and our signature to the Amsterdam treaty. The terms of that treaty were made very clear when the House debated it in 1997. I think that the Conservatives tried to make that and Nice the great election issue in 2001, and they got the answer that they deserved from the British electorate.

I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why we need QMV on aspects of asylum and immigration policy. Back in the early 1990s, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) signed up to a convention that became Dublin I. It had to be agreed unanimously and it was crazy to sign it, because, although it did not come into force until 1997, it was binding and prevented us from maintaining our bilateral agreement with France to return asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who had travelled through France.

There is no point in the Leader of the Opposition weeping about that decision, which was his responsibility. I tried to get the convention changed, but it took a very long time, because one or two countries proposed vetoing that change. QMV allowed us to make the change, and we now have returns agreements, and the same is true of the Eurodac fingerprinting convention. If the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) wants better to control immigration and asylum into this country, he must understand that we need co-operation with our European partners, a level playing field and, above all, to be able to change the law in our favour, but he is setting his face against all those things.

The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes asked about our position on Iran. In case he has not noticed, the British Government and the British Parliament are responsible for our foreign policy—I noted the implication of his remarks. Every single decision that France, Germany and the United Kingdom have made has been endorsed unanimously by the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on which the United States and others sit.

Finally and most absurdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that progress on Lisbon has not been as good as it should have been—I am glad that he has read that section of the White Paper—but then said that the European Union should secure more liberalisation, greater deregulation, better competition and a genuinely free market. What on earth does he think that the Lisbon agenda is about, if not deregulation, greater competition and a genuinely free market? Some people in the European single market are behind the action, which is why we have worked hard and successfully to get a Commission that represents our vision of the future and that will actively pursue the Lisbon agenda, which did not happen under the previous Commission.

I commend the practice of the regular publication of these White Papers. So far as the Government recognise the imperative need for progress on the single market and the Lisbon agreement, they will undoubtedly have our support.

I urge the Foreign Secretary not to ignore the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly with regard to access for third world countries, and especially those in Africa.

On China, I part company with the Foreign Secretary. How can lifting the arms embargo, which was imposed after the events in Tiananmen square, be justified given the scope of human rights abuses in China, including the detention of thousands of political prisoners, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself has described as a matter of serious concern? The Foreign Secretary visited Washington last week, and will be aware that political opposition to lifting the embargo exists across the board, and I hope that he will reconsider the position.

We have consistently supported the Foreign Secretary on Iran. What is the status of the current negotiations on a long-term agreement with Iran? When the Foreign Secretary meets the new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, tomorrow, will he impress upon her the validity of the European Union's approach?

Finally, on the constitutional treaty, I share the Foreign Secretary's keen sense of anticipation about the forthcoming debate. Does he agree that the campaign for an affirmative vote in that referendum should begin as soon as possible?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his opening remarks. Beginning at paragraph 39, the White Paper includes a good section on the need to reform the CAP. We want to see progress on the reform of the EU sugar regime, which, as the White Paper states, is the most archaic regime in the CAP and costs EU consumers an estimated £3.2 billion each year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may know, and Conservative Members may not, that we have been able to secure reforms of the CAP only as a result of QMV.

On the EU arms embargo on China, neither the European Council nor the General Affairs Council has made a decision. At the December meeting of the European Council—the summit of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers—good conclusions were agreed. Among other things, the conclusions stated that if the embargo is lifted, no quantitative or qualitative increase in arms sales by any European Union country to China should occur. I will be happy to debate that matter at greater length at an appropriate moment, Mr. Speaker.

Since 1989, there has been some change for the better on human rights in China, but the change has not gone far enough by any means. We continually raise that point with China, and I raised it when I was there two weeks ago. We have set out our view of the current state of human rights in China in a comprehensive human rights report. The big difference is that since 1989, and following initiatives by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the EU now has a comprehensive arms control regime, which it did not have before. The truth of the matter is that almost all the refusals of licences have been made under the comprehensive arms control regime code of conduct, and not under the embargo, which is narrowly focused and does not include, for example, fighter avionics, which is key high-tech equipment.

Conversely, in all but two rather trivial cases, all cases of refusal under the embargo would have been refused under the code of conduct in any event. We are seeking to strengthen the code of conduct in any agreement that is reached, so that the arrangement is more transparent and allows much better knowledge in both this House and across Europe of what other countries are doing in terms of arms sales.

On Iran, following the decisions made in the middle of November, which were endorsed by the IAEA board, three working parties are currently in discussions with the Iranians. As soon as there is anything to report, I will make it available to the House.

On the constitutional treaty, I, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, look forward to the Second Reading of the European Union Bill next week.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and particularly his comments about the constitutional treaty. The fundamental human rights agency is a new institution that was not subject to any discussions when the constitution was debated. If the new institution will deal purely and simply with the human rights implications of Community law, it will be welcome because it will fill a gap in general human rights law in Europe. If, however, its powers are to be extended so that it seeks to take over the role currently fulfilled by the Council of Europe, it will lead to dangerous duplication and two standards of human rights in Europe.

During the UK presidency of the EU, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the statute that is currently being debated, discussed and drawn up is minimalist in its aim and ensures proper human rights within European institutions, but does not extend beyond that.

The proposal for a human rights agency has nothing to do with the draft constitution.

It is a new institution.

It is, of course, a new institution. I accept my hon. Friend's concerns about duplication with the Council of Europe, which has also been a concern of ours in drafting the constitution. He will be familiar with the articles that ensure that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the statements in the European convention on human rights are not overturned by the charter of fundamental rights within the constitution.

I will be happy to follow up my hon. Friend's final point and discuss it with him.

I notice that the Foreign Secretary is going for "better" regulation. We all recall that his Government set up a Better Regulation Task Force when they first took office, but they quickly abandoned it because it was not effective. Why does he not go for less regulation instead of "better", and why does he not remove the EU's competences over regulation in this country? British businesses, particularly small ones, might then feel that something is happening.

Better regulation in many cases means less regulation, which is why I emphasised in my statement that part of the agenda that we, like other presidencies, will follow during our presidency is to ensure not only that there is real focus on new draft regulations, but a systematic process for eliminating unnecessary regulation. However, there are circumstances in which it is in the interests of British business and individuals for better regulation in a discrete area to mean new regulation. Indeed, one can think of a number of such circumstances. It is very easy for people simply to dismiss regulation, but without it, there would be no health and safety at work and we would be back to the situation that existed at the beginning of the 19th century. If that is the view—

Rubbish!

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but such measures depend on regulation. The single market, which is very much to the benefit of British business, depends not only on regulations but on their enforcement across Europe. Ours is the country and economy that has most benefited from access to a free market in Europe. We have to ensure that regulation is better, and in many cases that means less regulation, but in some cases it means new regulation.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the situation in Cyprus has stalled following the Republic's rejection of the Annan V plan. Some of us fear that, in the light of that rejection, Cyprus might try to veto certain aspects of European Union business and the negotiations with Turkey. Given that Turkey has influenced the Republic's decision to reject Annan V by, for example, stationing 35,000 troops in the north—there is also the question of property rights in that region—could my right hon. Friend use this October's negotiations with Turkey to try to find some common ground by persuading it to remove its troops from the north and to reach some accommodation with Cyprus?

As my hon. Friend knows, this is a very sensitive issue for both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. There was talk before the December Council of a possible veto by Cyprus, but in the event, following some very difficult negotiations, all members of the Council unanimously agreed a date of this October for negotiations with Turkey to begin. For the future, both Cyprus and Turkey look forward to one product of Turkey's ultimate accession and membership being complete normalisation of its relations with Cyprus, including recognition of that state. But there are strong feelings on both sides about this issue, and there has to be a process that secures consent from each side. We are actively encouraging that process.

How can the Foreign Secretary talk yet again about the need for regulatory reform while the European Commission continues to do the exact opposite? For instance, is he aware that the European Standing Committee has just debated a new EU proposal requiring employers to carry out risk assessments of, and to provide information and training on the problems associated with, exposure to outdoor light? The British Government regarded such a proposal as unnecessary, but it is subject to majority voting. How can we take the Foreign Secretary seriously? He talks about regulatory reform, but the culture of the EU continues to be one of yet more regulations, higher taxes, higher unemployment and low growth.

I am very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the merits of this regulation—[Interruption.] I understand from a sedentary comment that the argument in favour of it relates to skin cancer. As is often the case, we hear a parody of the purpose of such regulations. A moment ago, Opposition Front Benchers launched a ridiculous attack on women's rights, instead of understanding that half the population of Europe are women, who would perhaps like their rights to be protected.

On the wider issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, there has been a sea change in the Commission's culture, which is reflected in its new membership and in the clear policy direction given not only by President Barroso but, for example, by Peter Mandelson. In a very good article in today's edition of the Financial Times, Peter Mandelson sets out his and the Commission's vision for ensuring that EU regulation is lighter and more effective.

My right hon. Friend said in his statement that Africa would be an important part of the European Union's agenda. Is there not an important spillover from the public's response to the tsunami appeals and their willingness to see poverty in Africa tackled? Should we not take the highest ground possible on these matters, and is it not time for an international tax on currency speculation? Many African nations argue for the need for a form of Marshall aid. We might be able to secure a form of Straw aid, which might be more significant than that term would suggest.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend's more general statement. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a number of serious reservations about the proposed Tobin tax, which I share.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement and the publication of the White Paper. On security, is he aware that there are still some gaps in the extradition arrangements between the various European Union countries? For example, Spain refused to extradite a criminal to Dublin, and Belgium refused to extradite a particular individual to the United Kingdom. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that in the fight against international terrorism and criminality, he will aim to tighten up such arrangements?

Yes, I can. Frankly, extradition ought to be a very straightforward issue within Europe. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the system, which frustrated me when I was Home Secretary. I offer my personal commitment on this issue, and that of my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary.

I heard Viktor Yushchenko tell the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week that Ukraine's bid for EU membership would be decided not in Brussels but in Kiev. Does my friend agree with that, and what are the prospects of Ukraine's joining the EU?

Yes, and Mr. Yushchenko made the very important point that the EU is a union of independent nation states. So of course, the fundamental decision as to whether Ukraine is to apply for EU membership, and whether it achieves that, will be made by Ukrainians themselves in Kiev.

Although France, Germany and the United Kingdom have been negotiating, as the Foreign Secretary said, with Iran about its development of nuclear weapons, the United States Government still think that Iran has withheld information from us and that it is heading towards developing such weapons. Given that China is supplying, for example, Silkworm missiles to Iran, does not the EU's decision to consider lifting the arms embargo send out all the wrong signals?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. No such decision has yet been made by the EU and if one is, it will be made only on the strictest conditions and with a very significant improvement in the current code of conduct—including, for the first time, real transparency on arms sales on the part of every single member of the EU. The hon. Gentleman says that the United States complains that Iran has withheld information; so do we. Indeed, that is the basis of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors' original decision to declare that Iran was non-compliant with its safeguards agreement. I recently published a detailed command paper for the benefit of the House, setting out the ways in which Iran has been in breach. But I would also argue very strongly that the negotiations in which France, Germany and I are involved are the best way forward in trying to bring Iran back into compliance.

May I raise with my right hon. Friend the two draft regulations proposed by the Commission on financial aid to the Turkish Cypriots and the direct trade regulation? Those two have been linked together, but the first is non-contentious, and it is agreed by everyone that the Turkish Cypriots should have €259 million of aid. The second, however, is extremely contentious, protectionist and does little to advance the interests of the Cypriots as a whole, whereas a more free trade approach would. Will my right hon. Friend consider de-linking the two, so that Turkish Cypriots can secure the financial aid quickly while we attempt to apply more sensible trading arrangements on the island, particularly the option of making green line regulation more effective?

We want the financial aid to reach the Turkish Cypriots as quickly as possible. It is initially for the Commission to make proposals about the linkage or otherwise of the regulations, but I would add that I was present at the General Affairs Council on 26 April last year, when a package of proposals, including these regulations to benefit northern Cyprus, was unanimously agreed. That is not for a moment the same as recognising northern Cyprus as a separate state, but it will benefit the northern Cypriots and it acknowledges that they voted in substantial numbers in favour of the Annan plan. It is a matter of great regret that both the regulations have, in practice, been blocked by one member state since then.

I was surprised and somewhat disappointed that, in his comments on the prospects for the European Union, the Foreign Secretary made no mention at all of the middle east peace process. Does he agree that peace in the middle east is crucial to the war on terrorism and the future prospects for peace in the world? Will he clarify what the EU is going to do this year to put pressure on Israel, in particular, to move the peace process forward?

The White Paper has been available in the Vote Office for the last three hours, which is a modernisation proposal that I thoroughly support—

Oh!

I am grateful for that loyal approbation from my deputy. It has been noticed.

The White Paper is available and paragraph 84 spells out the key points. My statement was a brief summary of what appears there. The EU is doing a lot in respect of the middle east. Javier Solana, the EU special representative on foreign policy, will be present at the London meeting on 1 March that we are hosting, in order better to support the Palestinians as the withdrawal from Gaza takes place. I would like to see the House have a full debate on the middle east, but the truth is that the Government of Israel have moved a long way in recent months. Some quite remarkable things are now happening in respect of better co-operation between the Israelis and Palestinians. We are supporting that process and so, too, is the EU.

I welcome the White Paper's commitment to continuing reform of the common agricultural policy. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the petition for Africa, signatures for which are being collected in large numbers by churches and individuals in my constituency and, of course, elsewhere? Does he support the aim of the petition—to divert unfair subsidies for European farmers towards poverty alleviation in Africa?

I am aware of the petition, though I also know of some reservations about its detailed wording. The exercise is an excellent one and I fully support it. It is one of the democratic improvements that appears in the constitutional treaty.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many people in Scotland are generally favourable to the European Union, but find it absolutely impossible to support the constitution, not least because fishing is included as an exclusive competence under article I-12. Will the Foreign Secretary make any attempts to change the treaty prior to its being put to a referendum?

The hon. Gentleman knows that one votes either for or against a treaty. He should recall—I certainly do—the European parliamentary elections last June, in which his party majored on the issue of the common fisheries policy and got a bloody nose as a result.

My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to economic issues, but did not mention the most serious economic problem in Europe. I mean the weakness of the eurozone, which exhibits continuing low growth and high unemployment. It is evidence of serious mistakes in macro-economic policy and problems can only be exacerbated by the recent strengthening of the euro in relation to the dollar. That underlines, I believe, Britain's wisdom in staying out of the eurozone, but does my right hon. Friend agree that if something is not done to improve the performance of the eurozone, it could cause long-term damage to Europe and, indeed, over time, to the British economy?

The generalisation about the alleged weakness of the eurozone disguises very significant variation within different member states, ranging from countries that are doing very well to those that are not doing well at all. It is important that my hon. Friend bears that in mind. It is true that some countries in the eurozone have serious structural problems connected with the inflexibility of their labour markets, which is holding back growth. Other countries, however, have seized the opportunities provided by greater transparency of the euro and are doing very well indeed. The generalisations are dangerous. My hon. Friend will also know that in Germany, the largest single economy in Europe, Chancellor Schröder and Vice-Chancellor Fischer have courageously embarked on a major programme of economic and social reform. That is causing some pain for the moment, but I am confident that it will lead to precisely the same benefits of greater flexibility that we have seen in this country.

How will the European defence agency achieve the fine-sounding objectives that the Foreign Secretary set out, when the reality is that our European partners continue to cut their defence expenditure and commitments? Is not it all just posturing?

Some do, some do not. One of the exercises that we are involved in is to push European countries to increase their defence spending. We are more likely to achieve that, by the way, through being engaged with them than by carping from the sidelines. In any event, the European defence agency will help to improve efficiencies and interoperability, not least because it has an excellent British official at its head.

It has been suggested that, in putting growth and competitiveness at the top of its agenda, the new Commission is putting on the sidelines the EU's commitment to tackling climate change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not allow that to happen, given the evidence that is produced almost daily about the effects of climate change? Does he agree that tackling climate change must be at the heart of EU policy, along with the growth and competitiveness agenda, and that the issue should be a priority for the UK—not just for the six-month presidency period later in the year, but during the next few months in the run-up to it, too?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of climate change, but I see no evidence whatever that the Commission is back-pedalling on it. Europe is in the lead on climate change. When Russia signed up to Kyoto, it meant that Kyoto would come into force, and one main factor that influenced Russia was the strong representation made by several countries, including France and Germany, to encourage the country to do so. One of the arguments used was that controlling climate change does not lead to lower growth, but helps to sustain our economic prospects in the medium and long term.

What is the Government's reaction to the strange comments made yesterday by Mr. Barroso, the President of the Commission? In the middle of an otherwise very helpful set of comments on services liberalisation, he endorsed the concept of social dumping, which has been imported from the most reactionary and protectionist elements in France to justify restrictions on trade with low-income countries with necessarily lower wages and working conditions. How do the British Government react to that?

Happily, I was not aware of that remark by President Barroso, so I have no need to comment on it in too much detail. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that President Barroso and his Commission have made a brilliant start and will continue as they have begun.

On two key areas of international policy—the middle east peace process and Iran—the UK has played an important role in ensuring that Europe's position does not contradict that of the US but complements it. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that he will be able to do the same with respect to China?

Yes, I do. We work extremely hard in co-operation with both the US and our EU partners. Sometimes we may have a difference of view with some of our EU partners, and that was very evident in respect of Iraq. On other occasions—but far less frequently, in fact—there are some issues over which there is a difference of emphasis with our partners in the US. However, by a process of discussion and co-operation, we can usually arrive at a consensus. When we do, we are much the stronger for it.

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 7 February—Remaining stages of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.

Tuesday 8 February—Opposition day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate on climate change and the environment, followed by a debate on tackling the causes of crime. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. There will then be a motion to approve the third report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Wednesday 9 February—Second Reading of the European Union Bill.

Thursday 10 February—Remaining stages of the Identity Cards Bill.

Friday 11 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week after the half-term recess will include:

Monday 21 February—Remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

Tuesday 22 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Drugs Bill.

Wednesday 23 February—Opposition day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 February

Friday 25 February—Private Members' Bills.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. He will obviously have in mind a date for a Northern Ireland elections Bill. It would be helpful if the Bill were to be published. It may be controversial, but what is the timetable for publication?

Given the deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland following the recent IRA statement, does the Leader of the House know whether the Secretary Of State for Defence has the intention to reconsider the cuts that he made in the number of infantry battalions based there? Are we likely to have a statement on that in the coming week? He will know that, at the time that those cuts were made, Opposition Members, and indeed many hon. Members throughout the House, pointed out that they were premature and would place more pressure on the defence budget.

The Public Administration Committee report issued today suggests giving Parliament much more control over inquiries such as that into the former Home Secretary. Can we expect an early response? Clearly, Parliament needs to be treated with more respect than has been shown recently to our Select Committees.

Will the Leader of the House make a statement about parliamentary conventions? Two weeks ago, the Government wanted to change the convention that constitutional Bills are debated on the Floor of the House, but ultimately relented. The Deputy Prime Minister was given the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Housing: Building a Sustainable Future" early, and subject to a press embargo for Sunday. On Saturday, however, he showed total brass neck by ignoring the embargo in order to attack the report. As The Guardian put it:

"Mr. Prescott took the unusual step of reacting to the report a day before it was even due to be released."

The Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee ignored the convention that the Chairman supports the status quo when he voted to reverse that Committee's request to sit in public. The tied vote then went in favour of those who oppose open government. The Leader of the House himself told us how much he welcomed the original request. He said:

"I very much welcome the European Scrutiny Committee's decision . . . Indeed I do. In fact, I would like to see greater scrutiny". [Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 970.]

Is it not time that the Leader of the House condemned those who wish to go back to the bad, old-fashioned secrecy that has cloaked European scrutiny here? Surely we can rely on him to support such a modest piece of modernisation?

Finally, can we debate the Environmental Audit Committee report itself, which is also referred to in early-day motion 626,

[That this House expresses its deep concern at the plans to impose massive house building on Hertfordshire; notes that such plans are based on the Government's Sustainable Communities Plan launched by the Deputy Prime Minister; congratulates the Environmental Audit Committee on its report Housing: Building a Sustainable Future, which attacks the Government's plans as not adequately considering the environmental impacts of the proposed increase in house building, with the environment as principal loser, as establishing the principal role of planning as being simply to meet market demand without regard to democratic accountability, as not having an adequate evidence base, as not referring to environmental protection, as making efforts towards sustainability that are little more than window dressing and as likely to result in a dramatic increase in the number of properties flooded; calls on the Government to undertake the research recommended by the Committee to amend its plans to take account of the environmental impacts and not to take forward the current misconceived proposals, which would lead to overdevelopment in Hertfordshire and other parts of the South East and East, and to traffic congestion, train overcrowding and undue pressure on all local services; and condemns the Government for pressing ahead with this plan even though the East of England Regional Assembly has withdrawn its support.]?

The report attacks the Deputy Prime Minister's massive house building plans in the south-east for ignoring the environmental impacts of such building and ignoring democratic accountability. It states that it is likely to lead to a

"dramatic increase in the number of properties flooded".

That is what that Labour-dominated Committee found. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that Hertfordshire, my own county, and other counties do not want to become a concrete wasteland to be known as "Prescottshire"?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that carefully manufactured soundbite, but that is about all that I can say for his contribution. As for the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I can tell him that two thirds of all new dwellings in England in 2002 and 2003 were built on brownfield sites. That compares with 56 per cent. in 1997. The intention is to use existing brownfield sites wherever possible, and to protect the green belt. We also intend to proceed with more affordable housing by using Government land where possible, so that the main cost borne by homeowners is the cost of their home.

That approach compares with Conservative proposals to cut the funding for housing massively, as part of the £35 billion in cuts that they hope to make. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on that, as voters in the south-east and elsewhere will have to decide between a Labour Government who invest in new housing, mostly on brownfield sites, providing opportunities for new homeowners, and a Conservative party that would cut all that support, and take it away from first-time buyers in particular.

On the Northern Ireland elections Bill, we would like to publish it as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for discussion through the usual channels, and that it is being discussed in the House of Lords at present.

I agree that the IRA's statement is very regrettable, but it would be "premature"—to quote the hon. Gentleman—to start reconfiguring the infantry in Northern Ireland. It is very important to keep the peace process on track, and I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members, for once under their current leadership, will back the Government in that regard. That would contrast with their usual practice of continually undermining and sniping away at the peace process.

On the Public Administration Committee report, the Government will give a response in due course.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there was an argument about the Constitutional Reform Bill, but that that was resolved satisfactorily in the end. Indeed, he and I had a constructive conversation about the matter. However, I remind him that, on the second day in Committee, no Conservative Member was present at one stage of the debate. It is therefore very hard to tell quite why there was such a hoo-hah about providing extra time, given the sheer indifference among Conservative Members to that important matter.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the European Scrutiny Committee. He will know that the Committee reconsidered the matter last week. I understand that the vote was tied, with 12 hon. Members voting. After that, the Chairman voted and it was decided that the Committee should meet in private—at least for some sittings. The Committee meets in public when it takes evidence, and I have attended in various capacities to give evidence to the Committee. The evidence that I gave was always on the record, and given in public.

However, the Committee's vote needs to be respected by the House. It involved 12 hon. Members, whereas previously just five had voted. That was against the wishes of the Chairman, who thought that there should be proper representation.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Environmental Audit Committee report, and suggested that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had transgressed the normal protocols. As I understand the matter, that did not happen. I am advised that he was responding to a report of a leak when the question to which the hon. Gentleman referred was put to him. I think he is entitled to do that. If he or any other Cabinet Minister is challenged on the record by journalists, of course they cannot remain silent in the middle of any story that is beginning to run. It is interesting that instead of concentrating on the substance of the policies and arguing their merits—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is asking about policy issues in the context of a lot of processy stuff. It is interesting that Conservative Front Benchers are always obsessed with process, never the issues or the policies.

Yesterday, we had a very good debate about the excellent local government finance settlement for next year, but a number of issues require further explanation, so could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in which I could ask about a possible £4 billion cut in local government expenditure? As police, education and social services are protected, a cut would surely mean that houses would not be repaired, potholes would not be filled in, litter would not be collected, street lights would be left off, sports centres closed and libraries shut down. That may be the world that the Opposition want to live in, but I am sure that it would find no favour among Government Members.

I am absolutely sure that my hon. Friend is right. Whether it is cuts that would devastate communities such as his own and others across the country, or the £35 billion of cuts that Conservative Front Benchers are triumphantly proclaiming, everyone understands that they would destroy public services and take us back to high unemployment, economic risk, high interest rates and all the devastation that that would bring.

In relation to the business announced for next Thursday, does the Leader of the House recall his eloquent plea last week for a full working day on Thursdays? He said:

"By sitting an hour earlier on Thursday, we will make it again a day on which major business can be scheduled".—[Official Report, 26 January 2005, Vol. 430, c. 333.]

That is not yet in place, so how does he justify the inclusion of the Identity Cards Bill next Thursday? Is it not major business? Just because there are deep divisions in the Government and among the Conservatives, that is no excuse for truncating the debate to little more than four hours.

Today, urgent questions were raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Will the Government reply in detail before the debate? He will know that the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), wrote to the Home Secretary with 14 extremely important questions, and specifically asked for answers before next Monday. Can we be certain that we will have those answers before the debate? The Leader of the House will be aware from reports in both The Guardian and The Independent today that both inside and outside the House there are extremely serious concerns about the way in which the legislation appears to conflict with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Will he therefore reschedule the debate for a later date, so that we can have a proper, full debate on a day that even he recognises as suitable for major business?

Can the Leader of the House find an opportunity for the House to vote on the principle of making the other place more democratic and representative? He will be aware from today's papers that he and his Cabinet colleagues are being blocked by the Prime Minister on this issue.

Quite right.

That is the only support that the Prime Minister has in the House on this matter. In an extremely important article, The Independent points out that

"supporters of change have warned Mr Blair that Labour will be outflanked by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, who back a mainly elected chamber".

Is it not time to have that vote? Even the Prime Minister, when answering a question from me last week, admitted that it was a matter for the House on a free vote. When will the House have that free vote?

A free vote on precisely what? The last time there was a vote on the composition of the House of Lords there was no agreement on any of the options put before the House. The debate was the result of considerable consultation and preparation. As for the hon. Gentleman's objective of a reformed and democratically constituted House of Lords, I share the general principle of that objective, although not necessarily the details. I am on record as doing so, and have voted accordingly. There is therefore no surprise about the proposal or anything new in it. If we are to achieve a consensus, as the Prime Minister wants, that will allow us to move forward and resolve the matter, we must work at it rather than simply springing a vote on the House. I therefore advise the hon. Gentleman to wait and see how matters progress, especially after the general election.

As to whether there is time to consider the remaining stages of the Identity Cards Bill on Thursday, that was discussed by the usual channels, and it was agreed to hold the debate then. There is no question of truncating the discussion. How could the Government seek to truncate a discussion about the Bill, when it has been raging in the media? The Bill itself has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and detailed consideration in Committee. It is a major item, and it has been agreed on this occasion, as we have agreed on other occasions, to discuss it on a Thursday. Indeed, we are taking the legislative stages of another major Bill today. It has not been possible to secure agreement to hold Opposition day debates on a Thursday—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would agree to that—but it is possible to make progress on major pieces of legislation.

As for the report on identity cards published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we will obviously study it in full. We welcome the Committee's view that article 8 of the European convention on human rights does not prevent the issuing of any form of identity card—that is the key point. Currently, 21 of the 25 European states have identity cards. It is only the United Kingdom, Ireland, Latvia and Denmark—which has a national identity register—that do not. That underlines the point that there is no incompatibility between the Bill and the convention. People have concerns about identity cards, and the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole will wish to consider some of the issues raised by the Joint Committee. I do not, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's central proposition.

I welcome the review of road traffic offences published by the Home Office. It is an excellent document and will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House who wish to deal with the tragedy of death on our roads. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that primary legislation will be introduced after the consultation? More particularly, bearing in mind the fact that the consultation ends on Friday 6 May, if there is a general election in the meantime, can we be sure that enough work will have been done to introduce primary legislation at an early stage in the new Parliament?

The House is grateful for the consistent attention that my hon. Friend has paid to these matters. He welcomed the Government's introduction of the Road Safety Bill, and he will be aware of the written ministerial statement by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) today. The consultation paper sets out tough new proposals to reform the framework of offences dealing with bad driving, and seeks to address public concern, which he has ventilated, about the courts' ability to deliver justice, particularly when a death is caused by careless driving, death occurs involving a driver who should not have been on the road in the first place—such drivers may be disqualified or may not even have a licence—or when serious but non-fatal injuries are sustained by victims. We are addressing all those issues, and we will continue to do so, I hope, with my hon. Friend's input in the debate.

Will the Leader of the House alter slightly the business for the week of 21 February, and table a motion so that the House can debate removing the privileges that Sinn Fein's so-called Members of Parliament currently enjoy? Surely he agrees that they are no longer entitled to them.

That is similar to a point made by the shadow Leader of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is part of the context in which we are seeking to get the peace process back on the rails and secure a permanent democratic settlement to the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I do not think that it would be right for us to address this matter prematurely, although I understand the point that he is making.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on encouraging people off incapacity benefit and back into work—especially those who have the important skills that our country needs. As there is a perception that the policy is Treasury-driven and an attack on vulnerable people, will my right hon. Friend, in a spirit of fairness and equality, ensure that the Chancellor comes to the House to assure us that the same focus, resource and importance will be given to those who avoid paying tax in this country and whose tax burden falls on honest taxpayers?

Obviously, the Chancellor, laser-like, constantly seeks to get rid of tax avoidance or tax fraud and has devoted considerable attention to that. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the proposals on incapacity benefit are meant not to be punitive but to provide people who have been on incapacity benefit—some for a long time—with the opportunity to work, which everybody wants, and to fulfil their duty to society in some cases. In the south Wales valleys, I have seen for myself examples of exciting pilot programmes. In many cases, hundreds of people have come off incapacity benefit and gone into jobs, which they never imagined having the opportunity to do. With that individual support, which is costly, and with the incentives to come off IB and go into work, everybody is better off: society, because the benefit bill is lower; those individuals, because they gain the dignity and opportunity of work; and businesses with vacancies, which have those vacancies filled. That is win-win for everybody concerned, which is why we are so determined to take this forward.

I read in the papers that the Leader of the House has just come from a political session of the Cabinet at which no doubt an imminent general election was discussed. May I ask a business question in relation to that and hope for a less dismissive reply than I received last time? The Electoral Commission has proposed new and higher limits for expenditure by constituency candidates, to reflect the extra costs that now have to be reported. Those limits can come into being only when a statutory instrument is laid by the Government. When will they lay that statutory instrument?

I am sorry if I was dismissive to the right hon. Gentleman. I never try to be dismissive, to him in particular, as he is a senior and respected parliamentarian.

Unlike the rest of us.

Some Conservative Back Benchers invite a dismissive response, although it is always done in a gentle and smiley frame of mind, especially to the hon. Gentleman who is a great participant in the theatre—sorry, serious business—of business questions.

We shall obviously consider the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot tell him what went on in the political Cabinet, but it was most interesting.

Despite all the ceasefire agreements, violence in Sudan continues, with the African Union reporting that the Sudanese air force bombed a village a few days ago killing 100 villagers. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Darfur and the violence in Sudan so that we can call for more action, to ensure that those people receive not only the humanitarian aid but the protection that they need.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. She is right to keep bringing it before the House. It will of course be discussed in the Security Council shortly. We are providing active support to the African Union monitoring mission to ensure the safety of civilians in Darfur—vehicles, money and plenty of planning support. We have also encouraged the monitoring mission to deploy fully as soon as possible. So far about 1,500 personnel, from a total force of 3,000, have been deployed, and we expect a further 500 to be deployed soon, but that is not really enough, and it is imperative that the Government of Sudan fulfil their responsibilities in compliance with United Nations requirements and end the attacks on innocent civilians in that devastated area.

Will the Leader of the House find time before Easter to hold a debate on the collecting and collating of Government statistics, especially those on the measurement of economic growth and productivity? Is he aware that some people in the Office for National Statistics are expressing concern about the issue? There is suspicion that political pressure is being applied to come up with convenient numbers. As I know that the Government—and not least the right hon. Gentleman himself—want to be transparent, will he find time for this important issue to be raised on the Floor of the House?

It is indeed important, and I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I state most emphatically that there is no attempt to rig or in any sense manipulate the statistics provided by the ONS. Indeed, because of some anomalies that have crept in—I shall refer to them in a moment to explain where I think we are—the decision was taken to launch the independent Atkinson review. That decision was taken by the national statistician, not the Government: he himself said that he needed some independent advice. For example, under current measures of productivity, if we decrease class sizes, increase the quality of teaching and improve exam results, the statistics show a fall in productivity. If someone dies, that shows an increase in health productivity. Furthermore, 40,000 fewer people dying early from cancer and heart disease do not show up in the statistics at all. We have to try to make those assessments impartially, and the ONS, especially under its current leadership, is renowned for that robust independence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would want to maintain that.

In the state of New York, the Batson inquiry into fraud at Enron has heard evidence that both the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays worked with Enron executives in a way that allowed the company to hide the true state of its debts and contributed to its later bankruptcy, throwing thousands of employees out of work. Now that the evidence is on the record, when will we find time for a debate about the steps that the Serious Fraud Office is taking to ensure that our banks are clean and do nothing to encourage company directors to breach their fiduciary duties or their duties to their employees?

This is obviously a serious point, and given my hon. Friend's expertise and background, I am sure that the House will want to take particular note of it. He has the opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate on the issue, and I hope he will avail himself of that opportunity. I cannot promise him an early debate, but it is vital that such issues are addressed.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the state of British manufacturing industry? In my constituency on Monday, a manufacturer of trailers, Crane Fruehauf, closed its doors. The administrator was brought in and 345 employees were made redundant. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, that has had a devastating impact on the small market town of Dereham. Obviously, that situation came about for many reasons, but is there anything that the Government can do in the short term, through the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, to help the workers who have been made redundant?

Secondly, it seems that the company, like many others, was having great difficulty exporting, owing, among other things, to the high level of fuel tax on lorries. It seems to me that that is unfair competition, compared with many of our European partners.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to pay careful attention to the hon. Gentleman's point, especially given the importance of the matter in his constituency. For the benefit of his constituents and the House, I remind everyone that Jobcentre Plus provides an enormous range of support for those who, unfortunately, face redundancy. There is also a rapid response service when additional support is necessary, which has made its services available to more than 112,000 people facing redundancy. Unfortunately, manufacturing, more than almost any other sector of the economy, is subject to enormous global pressure and a certain amount of churning and changes in jobs. However, it is important to put it on record that last year manufacturing created £150 billion of our wealth; 3.5 million people earn their living directly from the sector; and it accounts for more than half our exports and three quarters of our business research and development.

There is a thriving manufacturing sector and it is important that we continue to invest in science, skills and other support for it, but obviously I am disappointed about what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and trust that the requisite services will be provided as soon as possible.

Has the Leader of the House had time to look at early-day motion 579, signed by 77 Members,

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3372), dated 17th December 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.]?

The motion reflects deep concern about the local government pension scheme regulations. He will be aware of the huge concern among public sector workers who believe that they are being given very little time for debate. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?