I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to ask an urgent question, of which I have given notice. Will the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs make a statement on the conclusions of the independent study group on the triplet studies of bovine tuberculosis and what action she proposes to take?

This morning the Government announced new measures to tackle bovine tuberculosis. At 9.30 am, a written statement was published. These measures include a 12-week public consultation on the control of badgers to reduce the disease in high incidence areas, the introduction of a requirement for the pre-movement testing of cattle to reduce cattle-to-cattle spread, and changes to the compensation arrangements that will bring payments for bovine TB into line with those for three other cattle diseases. Copies of all the relevant documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and earlier conversation with me.

This year roughly eight times as many cattle will be slaughtered as in 1997 from reactions to TB tests. Herd incidence is rising at 20 per cent. a year. The whole farming world believes that the Government have spent the past eight years putting off what we all recognise is a difficult decision. However, I welcome the introduction of pre-movement testing, for which we have been calling. I ask the Minister to reflect again on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I do not think that he fully appreciated the question that was being asked.

Can the Minister tell us whether there will be a regional basis for pre-movement testing or does it apply automatically across the whole country? Will he publish the proposed table for compensation under the new arrangements? Will there be an opportunity for farmers to appeal against whatever is allocated to them?

I welcome the extension of gamma interferon tests, but why do the Government persist in their own little world of trials of testing systems? Is it not clear from other countries that gamma interferon and polymerase chain reaction can significantly improve test results and reduce the culling of unhealthy cattle, and can indicate whether badgers in a particular sett are carrying TB? It is worth emphasising that badgers suffer mercilessly from TB.

Why have the Government not published specific proposals for badger culling? Is it not clear that the low level of trapping in the triplet studies, down to 30 per cent. in some areas, has caused massive disturbance, making badgers move into adjoining areas, thus spreading the disease rather than controlling it? Does the Minister agree, therefore, that only by efficient and humane culling of whole family groups can we be certain of removing infected animals?

We agree that strict cattle controls and better testing are necessary, but alone they will not work. I believe that the Minister will have general cross-party support for a badger culling programme. Such a decision is clearly distressing and unwelcome, but it is inevitable and the further delay for another consultation is unnecessary. We do not wish, however, to create a badger-free zone, so will the Government develop a plan so that badgers from clean areas can be reintroduced once the infection has disappeared? Then we can have what we all desire: healthy cattle and healthy wildlife.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. He is right to stress that this is a health and welfare issue for badgers as much as for cattle. It is not quite fair of him to say that the Government have been putting off a decision for six years. After all, the Government initiated the Krebs trials. No previous trials had been conducted by Governments to get to the bottom of the role played by badgers and, indeed, the extent of that role. I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that there is still a lot of uncertainty in the science.

Far from putting anything off, we brought this announcement forward to today; a lot of people did not expect the Government to say anything until 2007—a year after the Krebs trials finish. The hon. Gentleman asked why have a delay and a consultation now, but he should accept that it would not be right to jump to conclusions less than 24 hours after we have received the results from the very long-running and important tests. I want hon. Members and other people to have the opportunity to take a careful and, I hope, calm and rational look at not just the results of the Krebs trials, but the experience gained in the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere in the world. The executive summary to the document that we published today states:

"international experience indicates it is not possible to contain and eradicate bovine TB if its background presence in wildlife is left unaddressed."

We go on to say:

"The scientific evidence shows that intensive culling of badgers over large areas can be effective".

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the dilemma that is posed by the results that were published last night by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, which showed a significant benefit in terms of the incidence of bovine TB in the area where badgers are culled, but a significant disbenefit in a circle around the periphery. It also showed, however, that the balance of benefit tended to improve with the intensity of culling and with the size of area. It is clear that a number of uncertainties still exist, which is why the Government think it important to have a proper, full and open consultation.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about pre-movement testing, it will not be regional as such, but for the first year at least, there will be a requirement for all cattle moving out of one and two-yearly testing herds. It will depend on the incidence of TB, rather than on an arbitrary regional boundary. Yes, we will publish the tabulation system for compensation, if it has not been published already in the documents before the House.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I responded to the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) on pre-movement testing and the charges. I did not quite understand it—perhaps someone else may like to put it to me again during this session—but the testing will be a private transaction between a farmer and a vet. Certainly, DEFRA has no intention of profiteering or charging more than would otherwise be charged. Indeed, our objective is to roll out testing by lay testers, which should significantly reduce the cost to farmers.

The hon. Gentleman asked about gamma interferon and PCR. It is important to stress that nothing that we are announcing today means that we can take the foot off the accelerator in terms of the work that is already going on to develop a vaccine both for badgers and for cattle, or to develop a PCR. He is not quite right to suggest that we have already got a reliable PCR test for bovine TB in badger setts. That work will continue, as will the rolling out of the gamma interferon test, which is an important adjunct to, not a replacement for, the skin test.

I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that there will be pre-movement testing. I am sure that he is aware that bovine TB was introduced into Cumbria, following the restocking from the west country after the foot and mouth outbreak, because there was no such testing. It is over 10 years since I asked what progress was being made on a vaccine for bovine TB. There seems to have been no progress. Is that because of a lack of resources or a lack of will?

It is neither of those things. We announced field trials for vaccines for badgers back in the summer and there is more work to be done to progress the field trials to cattle, too. However much money one throws at such difficult scientific, medical and veterinary issues, I am afraid that one cannot hurry the science. Scientific research on the development of an effective vaccine cannot be speeded up—it takes time. That challenge is faced by not only this country, but other countries that suffer similar TB problems.

I welcome the statement. I think that we can wait another 12 weeks given that we have waited several years for Government action to address what we all accept is a crisis in the countryside regarding bovine TB.

The Minister is apparently ruling out any chance of DEFRA being involved in any control measures for badgers and is leaving it all to the farmers. I suspect that he will tell us that that is because of cost, but if the action was successful, compensation payments would reduce, which would cover some of the cost of any control measures implemented by DEFRA itself. How will he ensure that such control measures are effective if all farmers in a specific area do not propose to participate? Does he perceive that farmers who undertake such control measures might be threatened or intimidated? What is the current state of the Krebs trials? Are they just continuing, or will the results be available before the implementation of any measures that he might introduce after the consultation process?

I support the contention that pre-movement tests will result in pretty significant costs, especially for small farmers. At the minimum, could there be a transitional period so that they would not have to meet the full force of those costs straight away? On the tabulated valuations, I am sure that there will be disputes about the value of specific cattle because of their pedigree and so on. Does the Minister intend to have at least an appeal system so that farmers are not just told, "Sorry, that's what your valuation is."? We need a mechanism whereby farmers can challenge the valuation of compensation.

DEFRA is not ruling anything in or anything out, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the document that we have published today, he will note that we suggest three different scenarios for consultation. He is right that none of them gives the state a role in any culling process. It would be carried out by farmers not only for the reason of cost that he suggests, but because of practicality, as well as the capacity of the Government to deliver. Farmers and farming bodies have understood that during conversations that other Ministers and I have held with them. There is a general desire that farmers should have ownership of any policy that is pursued.

On effectiveness and farmer compliance, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on one of the real question marks over how effective a culling policy could be if compliance was not high. The Krebs trials that reported last night showed that the more edges there are, the greater the edge effect. It is better, if possible, to have coherent areas in which culling is intensive and widespread. It is a problem if farmers and landowners in such areas do not want culling to take place on their land because there is no way in which the Government would compel them to cull.

The discussions that we have had with farmers and the industry show that they do not envisage that threats to farmers would be a major problem. On the contrary, they rather think that the scheme would be more effective if it were run by farmers because local farmers could get together to organise any possible cull.

The Krebs trials have not finished yet. Although the culling has finished—the last culling took place about two weeks ago—the independent science group is still evaluating the latest figures. As the group has indicated, we expect that the latest figures will show more benefit than the earlier ones because, as I said, the evidence suggests that the longer repeated culling goes on, the greater the reduction of bovine TB. The data will be provided as they come through during the consultation and, no doubt, afterwards.

On pre-movement testing and costs, I remind the House that the costs to the taxpayer at present are more than £90 million a year. I hope that there is cross-party support for the idea that the taxpayer should not shoulder all the costs and that they should be shared if the Government are doing something that we think will help farmers. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's question about valuations, there is no appeal.

Like most Members with rural or part-rural seats, I have regular discussions with my local branch of the National Farmers Union. I am sure that the NFU will welcome the statement made today, as there is a serious risk of the loss of farmer co-operation, which is so essential if we are to eradicate the disease. I seek the Minister's reassurance on a point made recently to me by the NFU. Is not there at least a theoretical risk to human health? That is starting to concern the NFU, the rural community and all food consumers—all of us in the United Kingdom, in fact—so could my hon. Friend reassure us in that regard?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for today's announcement. He is right: bovine TB is probably our most serious animal health problem. It is devastating for the farmers whom it affects; it is extremely distressing for a farmer to lose some, or in some cases all, of their cattle. It is also a serious health and welfare issue for badgers, but as my hon. Friend rightly says there are potential human health risks—they are not even theoretical—if we do not get the disease under control.

Paragraph 58 of the Minister's consultation document on culling states:

"The scientific evidence shows that intensive culling of badgers over large areas can be effective in helping to prevent the spread of bovine TB",

yet paragraph 59 states:

"On the other hand, the scientific data is not available to reliably quantify the beneficial effect."

Given those conflicting statements, will the Minister spell out to the House, against the background of a Department that relies on sound science for its decision-making process, what criteria he will deploy to make the decision at the end of his 12-week consultation period?

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the executive summary. The criteria—this is nothing new—would be that culling was supported by the best available science, and he is right to highlight the fact that there is still a degree of uncertainty about the science. It would have to be successful; we would have to be convinced or satisfied that what we did would be effective, cost-effective, practicable and sustainable.

This is a difficult and contentious issue where it is important to make progress quickly, but is not it important to build on consensus? One point of consensus is improved farm biosecurity. Surely that is why pre- and post-movement testing is so important. Is the Minister committed to the maximum scope for pre-movement testing? When will it start and who will carry the costs?

Pre-movement testing will begin in February. As my hon. Friend will know it has already begun in Scotland where post-movement testing also takes place. He is right that improved biosecurity is important, although it will not solve the problem completely. One thing that the rationalisation of compensation will help to do is to create more incentive for farmers to improve their biosecurity. If we go ahead with badger culling at the end of the consultation period, we shall ensure that where badger culling is licensed, it is in return for certain standards of biosecurity.

Does the Minister recognise that there will be profound disappointment in the farming community that the Government have not seized the nettle and taken action? In the light of the consultation, which we understand will take three months, will the Minister guarantee that at the conclusion of that three-month period a decision to act will be taken? Will he tell us who will take the decision—the bovine advisory group, the Government or DEFRA? Will he give us those assurances now?

I do not accept that today's important announcement should be greeted with disappointment. No previous Government of either political colour have ever consulted on a significant badger cull in this country. I hope that he accepts and appreciates that, and takes that message back to his farmers. As for the consultation, as I said, we have brought it and the decision forward. My firm view is that the time for decision is nigh. It will be made at the end of the consultation by the Government. Of course, we will listen to the independent TB advisory group, and to the opinions expressed during the consultation. In the end, however, it will be a decision for the Government.

I am afraid that I must tell the Minister that my constituents will be very disappointed and that their hearts will be heavy at the thought of another three months spent waiting for yet another consultation. In the hot spot of Cheshire, which is on the front line in the spread of bovine TB, particularly around Audlem in my constituency and Market Drayton, which is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), may I suggest that the Minister institute a pilot scheme for culling, as he would do in any other area of Government performance, to help to demonstrate the evidence that he has to weigh up in that 12-week period? Pilot schemes have obviously helped in other areas of Government policy making, and the time is ripe for one to be used in this instance.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman reveals a lack of knowledge of bovine TB. The Irish trials took three years to achieve results, despite intensive culling using snares over wide areas. A pilot lasting a few weeks in his constituency, as he has suggested, would show absolutely nothing, and would be worse than useless. Let us have the consultation. Incidentally, he is not right that it is yet another consultation, because no such consultation has been held before. There was no consultation on a policy of badger culling under the Conservative Government, so I do not know what he is talking about.

The Minister stated that bovine TB was a serious problem not just for cattle and dairy farmers but for animal welfare and human health. Has he ever seen a badger with TB, and the distress and pain that it suffers before it dies? Can he give us an accurate figure for the amount of money that the problem will cost the taxpayer in compensation to farmers? It is clear to those of us who are concerned about both the dairy industry and animal welfare that culling is the only effective way to rid this country of TB, which is damaging to our dairy herds.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have certainly seen pictures, films and post-mortems of badgers with TB, which is clearly not very nice for them. It is difficult to tell whether or not a live badger has TB, although some people claim to be able to do so. I have seen badgers near my constituency in Devon wandering around during the day, which was not at all usual in my childhood but has become commonplace. As for the cost of TB, as I said earlier, last year, it cost the taxpayer more than £90 million, a good proportion of which was compensation for slaughtered cattle.

When the Minister considers the question of costs and the lack of an appeal, will he bear in mind the fact that farmers—usually, small farmers—perhaps with closed herds, have lost all their spirit for farming as a result of what has happened to their herds in recent years? He should not forget that we are talking about some of the poorest farmers in the country, who will now be exposed to the full cost of veterinary charges. I beg him to think of the consequences for poor, small farmers.

I shall certainly do so, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Governments have a responsibility to the taxpayer. Three independent reports have been produced, all of which show that serious overpayment has been made in a significant number of cases. In addition, a higher payment was made for bovine TB than for other cattle diseases, which is why we are introducing the change to the compensation payments.

While it is true that bovine TB is falling in Northern Ireland in contrast with the significant rise in other parts and regions of the United Kingdom, a wildlife cull in hot-spot areas is essential. It is not welfare-friendly to protect TB-infected wildlife, so a cull would surely be good not only for farmers but for wildlife suffering from the disease.

It is important to remember that this is a devolved issue, and I am sure that my colleagues responsible for agricultural issues in Northern Ireland will study the consultation documentation as closely as everyone else in the House.

It really is incredible, having spent £2 billion not curing TB with current methods, that we should have yet another consultation. To secure agreement on a method of culling, the Government must seek a derogation from the 1979 Berne convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. Article 9 allows for derogations, but appendix IV lists a number of prohibited culling methods. How long will it take to secure a derogation, and which methods of culling will the Minister seek?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This is not yet another consultation—it is the first ever consultation. He is also wrong about the need for a derogation from the Berne convention.

The Minister has already pointed out that if a badger cull is to be effective, it must be intensive and cover a sufficiently large area. May I draw a comparison with the contiguous cull policy on foot and mouth which, although distressing at the time, led to an early elimination of the disease? Will the Minister's attempts to eliminate TB be as strong as his attempts to eliminate foot and mouth?

I was not at the Department during the foot and mouth outbreak, but whatever we decide to do on bovine TB, it will require considerable resolve. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the scientific evidence appears to suggest that fiddling around with small-scale localised culling is at best ineffective and at worst probably makes things considerably worse. The stark choice that we may well face after the consultation is to do nothing or to do something quite serious.

I regret that there will not be an appeal system, so will the Minister ensure that valuations of cattle are published and updated on his website so that people know where they stand? I think that he said that the Government will not compel a farmer to cull, so may I have a reply to my letter to the Secretary of State about the appalling bullying of my constituents in Pensax? Finally, he asked for clarification of a question that I asked earlier. If the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is paying a certain price to vets for the test, will he ensure that vets cannot charge farmers more for the same work?

That will be a matter between farmers and their vets, as it is a private transaction, but we hope that in time there will be more lay testers, which will reduce the cost of testing for farmers. As for compelling farmers to participate, I do not recall the connection with the constituency case that he raised, but I shall check and write to him. In the event of a badger cull going ahead, it is not realistic to expect any Government to compel landowners or farmers to cull badgers on their land. However, in some of the worst affected areas, the level of compliance will be high, and we would do what we could to encourage compliance, and I believe that farmers and farm industry representatives would try to do that as well. There should be encouragement and exhortation, but I would stop short of compulsion. Valuations will be updated regularly, and both the valuation regime and the pre-movement testing arrangements will be constantly reviewed.

I welcome the statement. Unlike many of my colleagues, I do not think that it is unreasonable to conduct a 12-week consultation after six years. Compliance, however, is a major issue, and it is linked to the financial help that the Government can give small farmers on pre-movement testing. Will he address that issue?

No, not at this stage. We would very much like a proper system of farm insurance in this country, as most countries have, whereby farmers pay into a fund which can cover such costs. In the UK we still have a system that is based almost entirely on the taxpayer. We are trying to move away from that, so what the hon. Gentleman is recommending would be a retrograde step. I hope our announcement today shows farmers that the Government are serious about tackling TB, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the 12-week consultation.

To identify better the spread of bovine TB, should the Government be doing more to encourage the analysis of badgers that fall victim to road kill?

I am not sure. The road-kill testing has not been incredibly helpful to us in identifying areas of high TB, or even the relationship between areas of high TB in badgers and areas of high TB in cattle. It is quite expensive and in all these matters decisions must be made about what is the most effective way of spending taxpayers' money to tackle the disease. Given the announcement that I made today, I am not sure that spending a lot more money on testing road-kill badgers for TB is the most effective way forward.

May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?

As I previously announced, the business for next week is as follows:

Monday 19 December—A debate on police restructuring on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Tuesday 20 December—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.

The business for the week following the Christmas recess will be:

Monday 9 January—Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.

Tuesday 10 January—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare Bill.

Wednesday 11 January—Remaining stages of the Electoral Administration Bill.

Thursday 12 January—Motions relating to the Crossrail Bill, followed by a debate on "Security of Energy Supply" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 13 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 January will include:

Monday 16 January—Remaining stages of the Equality Bill [Lords]

Right hon. and hon. Members will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 20 December.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 12 January and 19 January will be:

Thursday 12 January—A debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on "Family Justice: The Operation of the Family Courts".

Thursday 19 January—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on antisocial behaviour.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving the House the opportunity for a debate on the security of energy supply, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has been requesting for some time. I trust that I will have the same degree of success with the request that I shall make to the Leader of the House today.

Given the importance of the outcome of the Montreal talks on climate change, which is of long-term significance to us all, and the fact that there has been only limited opportunity to question Ministers through Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions because there has been no oral statement on the matter, will the Leader of the House guarantee that there will be a debate in Government time on the Montreal agreements on climate change?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not have missed the various reports of recent weeks about the problems in public services. In the health service there are many NHS trusts that are in deficit to a total of many hundreds of millions of pounds. Operations are being cancelled and people's names are being taking off waiting lists. As an example of the problem, the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust will be cutting 280 jobs, crucially including those of nurses and doctors. We learn today that two thirds of our hospitals do not reach the top standards of cleanliness. In education, we heard yesterday that four out of 10 children come out of primary school without being able to read or write properly. So does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the need for a debate in Government time on the delivery of quality public services when Members can press Ministers on why, with so much extra money going to our public services, the Government are still failing to deliver the quality of services that people need?

Of course, public services are also delivered by local councils. The Audit Commission reports today that four out of five of the top-performing local authorities are Conservative-controlled. I am sure the Leader of the House will want to join me in congratulating the best performing council in the country, Conservative-controlled Wandsworth. At the same time we are told that half of all town halls are wasting council tax payers' money, so will he ensure that there is a debate in which we can discuss how local authorities can best deliver improved public services and how they can learn from the success of Conservative councils?

Finally, in the spirit of Christmas good will, may I say to the Leader of the House that we on the Conservative Benches stand ready to give any help and advice—[Laughter.] Wait for it—any help and advice to Labour or Liberal Democrat Members who wish to learn how to run a successful leadership election.

The right hon. Lady referred to the season of good will to all men and, indeed, to all women. I am delighted to welcome her to her new responsibilities as shadow Leader of the House. I always enjoyed my exchanges with her predecessor and I welcome her unreservedly to her new role. No doubt our friends the sketch writers will already be working hard on their Punch and Judy comparisons.

The Government will be delighted to engage in debate and discussion on the outstandingly successful Montreal talks on climate change. I am sure there will be many opportunities for the House to debate that remarkable success, and I am sure all Members of the House will want to pay tribute to the extremely effective negotiating position adopted successfully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has gone straight from Montreal to Hong Kong, where no doubt she will continue the Government's record of success in international negotiations. I am delighted that in the spirit of good will and co-operation, the right hon. Lady wants to congratulate members of the Government on achieving such remarkable successes in international negotiations.

I am sorry the right hon. Lady spoiled the sense of good will by making allegations about problems in public services. Possibly the way in which we might have a more rounded debate on the subject is to have a debate comparing the state of Britain's public services today with those in 1997, when we inherited a sorry picture. Let me go through the same list as she gave us—the appalling problems of waiting lists in the national health service, which were resolved by the present Government, and the appalling number of operations cancelled. If she checks the report, she will see that those figures are much reduced. What is remarkable about that reduction is that we are conducting many more operations and cancelling many fewer, a fact which, in the spirit of fairness at this time of year, I hope she will take into account when she next comes to the Dispatch Box.

On cleanliness, the same report refers to the remarkable improvement in cleanliness. I pick out 1997 as a convenient date but these things have improved significantly since that time. The same is true of primary education, the quality of education and the amount of investment provided. The Government have no worries at all about the possibility of debates on public services. Every time we debate health, education, transport, policing—the whole range of public expenditure—the Government have a record of which we can be proud. I only wish that Conservative Members could come to the Dispatch Box and say the same.

In relation to local authorities, the right hon. Lady relied on a rather narrow sample. If she looks a little more widely, she will see that there are more Labour councils improving than Conservative ones. We would all want to ensure that the information set out to the House was accurate.

I mentioned to the House last week that I intended to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Given the decision of the new Leader of the Opposition to pull his Members of the European Parliament out of the European People's party group, I am sure that Conservative Members will be delighted to hear that Alessandra Mussolini's group send their seasonal greetings to them. I hope the right hon. Lady will be receiving a Christmas card from her new potential sister party, described affectionately by a Conservative MEP, Struan Stevenson, as

"a ragbag of fascists and outcasts."

This morning, a paper reviewing the coal health compensation schemes was laid in the Library. Like many others, I welcome that report, which indicates that between £5 billion and £7 billion will potentially be paid out in compensation to miners' widows and retired miners. However, I am sure that hon. Members will be as angry as me when they read the report and find out that an estimated £1.6 billion will be paid out to solicitors. Will the Leader of the House make time available to debate that issue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which affects many constituencies across the country—I represent a former coal-mining area. There have been some 580,000 claimants on the lung disease scheme and 170,000 claimants for vibration white finger. Total costs by 2011 are estimated to be approximately £7 billion, with £4.5 billion paid in compensation. We will study the report carefully, because we have learned lessons in the course of running such huge compensation schemes, and if similar arrangements are required in future, we would obviously seek to implement those lessons.

May we have a debate on the unlikely subject of Government help to distressed citizens? [Hon. Members: "Charles Kennedy"] Is the Leader of the House aware that since the beginning of 2003, 119 million calls to so-called Government helplines have been missed? That is 126,270 missed calls a day, so about 1,000 calls have been missed since we started business questions. Given that many of those calls come from people who are distressed because the tax credit system is working so badly, can we at least get the phone system working so that those people can make a proper complaint?

May we have a debate on the control of British airspace and airports? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said,

"The idea that we should investigate every time that a United States Government plane flies into this country is completely absurd."—[Official Report, 14 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1296.]

Many hon. Members expect the Government to know which planes from overseas powers, whether or not they are friendly, are flying into British airspace and the reason why such planes are landing at British airports.

Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be statements following the European Council and the World Trade Organisation summit? Given that the failure of one is likely to impact on the failure of the other, until we do something effective to reduce the common agricultural policy, there will be a continuing barrier to helping developing countries through the WTO.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of distressed citizens, which the Government will examine as a matter of urgency. Although I am not a betting man, in the spirit of my illustrious predecessor, Robin Cook, I shall draw the attention of the House to the odds on the potential Liberal Democrat leadership election: the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is the bookies' clear favourite to take over at 5:4 on; the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is not generously priced at 6:4; and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is 11:2. I am sorry to tell the House that despite extensive research I was unable to find a single bookmaker offering odds on the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). In the spirit of Christmas cheer and as a lasting memorial to my predecessor, however, I am prepared to offer odds of around 100:1.

It is important that those in difficulty, particularly at this time of the year, can register their complaints, and it is true that difficulties have occurred from time to time with the arrangements that we have put in place. However, I assure the House that those arrangements were implemented ultimately to ensure that facilities work better and that the Government have not sought deliberately to make the situation worse. Our purpose is to ensure that the system is more effective and efficient.

I do not intend to comment beyond the excellent observations made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in answer to the question from the leader of the Liberal party. The issues in relation to so-called rendition have been satisfactorily dealt with and set out clearly.

The Government will carefully consider the outcomes of the European Council and the World Trade Organisation summit, and we will report as fully as possible to the House. Hon. Members know that a statement is customarily delivered following European Councils, and I see no reason why we should depart from that practice.

Returning to council performance, will my right hon. Friend consider timetabling a debate on the accountability and responsibility of councils for leisure and recreational facilities? I have recently taken a petition of 15,000 names to No. 10 Downing street protesting against the decision by Tory-run Dudley council to close Brierley Hill swimming baths and leisure centre. The responsibility for leisure and recreational facilities is not taken fully into account in assessing council performance, because if it were, my constituents would not face this awful decision.

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue for the communities of Dudley and Stourbridge. The Government set great store by the provision of sporting facilities, and swimming baths provide excellent opportunities for all members of the community to participate in exercise and entertainment. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on the campaign against those particular proposals and wish them every success.

Given that British motorists pay a staggering £30 billion a year in road taxation and that Britain invests less in its roads infrastructure than the rest of Europe, will the Leader of the House consider holding an urgent debate on that subject in the new year, because constituencies such as mine suffer as result of the lack of investment, particularly in roads such as the A11, the A14 and the A47?

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the important contribution made to general taxation by road users. At the same time, our significant investment in the road network is rather larger than that before 1997. We must maintain that level of investment in an environmentally sensitive and sensible way, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will take into account the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Will my right hon. Friend have a careful look at the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton), who referred to the projected settlement of those 580,000 claims? In recent days, the court has decided on a fast-track scheme produced partly by the miners group, which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, to get those payments, many of which involve small sums of money, to elderly miners. The solicitors agreed to forgo their payments, but in court it has been decided that £1,800 will go to the solicitor and an average of £1,400 will go to the miner, which is a scandal. The fast-track scheme was promised on the basis of not spending a great deal of money—for example, medical tribunals are not required. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry will appeal against that judgment, which is an almighty scandal.

I made the position clear in the answer that I gave earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) puts his point with his customary conviction and clarity. We recognise the difficulties that there have been and the costs that have built up. I am not going to comment on a particular legal decision, not least while it is subject to appeal, but I entirely accept that we need to get the balance right between the amount of compensation paid and the legal costs involved.

I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for a debate on the Government's performance, during which it would be possible to point out that 300 constituencies have higher unemployment than they had nine months ago, and that waiting times for hearing tests in hospitals are longer in most places than they were in 1997, ranging between six months and four years.

May I raise a non-partisan point that matters to every local authority in England? Ten days ago, the rate support grant settlement was announced, but local authorities have not had the exemplification of the changes that is usually made available two or three days later. Could they have that detailed information before the House rises? The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website says that it is "to follow", but resource directors need it now in order to plan their budgets.

The public have an opportunity to debate the Government's performance every time that there is a general election. I am sorry to have to remind the hon. Gentleman that that debate took place earlier this year, when once again the public overwhelmingly concluded that the Government's performance was rather better than the potential performance that was on offer from the Opposition. As the hon. Gentleman is usually an extremely fair-minded Member of this House, I find it astonishing, if he will forgive me for saying so, that he refers to unemployment. This country went through an horrendous period of unemployment under the last Conservative Government, yet today there is virtually full employment. I hope that he will revert to his more fair-minded approach in future. I might say the same about his comments on waiting list statistics.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the detailed information that local authorities require. I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is drawn to that so that it can be made available.

Can we have a debate on the fire service? The Government are closing down fire stations in the townships and opening new ones way out of the townships. That is what is happening in my constituency. Only last night there was a big fire in Blyth, where unfortunately someone lost their life, and the fire engine had to be called from another town because of another fire in a factory. The Government seem to be getting away with murder by not debating this issue on the Floor of the House.

My hon. Friend is right to raise what is obviously a very important constituency issue for him. However, let me assure him that decisions on the reorganisation of fire service provision, particularly the location of fire tenders, are taken in the interests of providing the best and most efficient service. That will not change. Indeed, the Government are investing a significant amount of money in new equipment for the fire service. It is important that that equipment is in the right place to provide maximum help to most citizens.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he would look to see how much more information could be put into the public domain concerning the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to collapse the case of the Stormont spy ring. Will the Leader of the House indicate when we might have a statement, and will he ensure that it is made in this House at the Dispatch Box so that Members can ask questions?

The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in raising this issue. He raised it with me last week, he raised it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, and he raises it again today. The message has not really changed. This is a matter for an independent prosecuting authority. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that he will look hard to see what further information can be made available. That will take a little time, but I shall ensure that the information is made available to the House at an appropriate stage.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Defence about the future of the aircraft carrier orders. I am happy to say that that gives recognition and credit to British shipyard workers, men and women alike. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage the successful companies, wherever possible and all things being equal, to sub-contract out work with the interests of British workers at heart by awarding contracts to British companies?

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will make a statement to the House in due course, and I am sure that he will deal with these issues in more detail. As I have had a passing acquaintance with such matters over a number of years, I can assure my hon. Friend that it is important that in the construction of those two very large ships—the largest ships that have been produced in the United Kingdom's history—the work should, wherever possible, be made available in the United Kingdom, subject of course to all the appropriate safeguards that are required. This represents an enormous opportunity for British shipyards. My right hon. Friend made his statement yesterday, and I am sure that further details will be available later today.

Is the Leader of the House aware that, according to experts, up to 500 people are killed needlessly each year as a consequence of our maintaining the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn? Could we have a debate on the benefits of extending summertime throughout the year? If, as I suspect, the only objectors are a handful of Scots, should not they be told, "Look, you've got your own Parliament—if you don't like it, go away and give yourselves your own time zone"?

I know that the Conservative party is finally in a phase of modernisation, but I believe that it was once known as the Conservative and Unionist party. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman's observations may somewhat reflect the rather poor performance that the Conservative party has achieved in Scotland in recent years. I suspect that were he standing here he would not make quite the same observations about the important contribution made to the United Kingdom by those from north of the border—would he, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, the whole question of the changing of clocks and alignment with other European countries is one that the Government take very seriously, as they do Scotland.

Will my right hon. Friend find some time in the new year for a debate—possibly led by himself, as the subject covers several Government Departments—on the effects on the social cohesion of our communities of simultaneously reorganising the police service, the fire and rescue service, the ambulance service, primary care trusts, education and local government? Are we adopting the policy that some groups have of continuous revolution and reorganisation, and if so, can we consider its effects?

I recognise that those issues cause concern locally, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I am not quite so grateful for his suggestion as to who should lead the debate, but at this time of the year I will take all the presents that I can get. The question of geographical boundaries as regards various public services is important. My hon. Friend is right to mention the various reforms that are taking place. However, the more the boundaries of different public services can be aligned, the more likely it is that we can deliver those services successfully and efficiently. I hope that he recognises that that is an important part of this Government's ambitions.

As the Leader of the House said, this is the season of goodwill. Will he bring a message of goodwill to the work force at BAE Systems in Woodford, part of which lies in my constituency, and arrange for a statement to be made in this House—or in the other House by Lord Drayson, the Minister for Defence Procurement—on the award of the Nimrod MRA4 project? That is long overdue, and the aircraft is much needed by the RAF. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an early decision? If it could be done before Christmas, I would happy to buy him a drink.

The hon. Gentleman has raised this question with me on several previous occasions, albeit in a different capacity as far as I am concerned. I can certainly arrange for a statement on defence industrial strategy to take place very soon, and I hope that he takes full advantage of that opportunity to raise this important matter.

The parliamentary highlight for me yesterday was not Prime Minister's questions, but—as an accountant and someone with strong Scottish antecedents—the publication of the Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland statistics for 2003–04, albeit 21 months after the event. They reveal that public expenditure per head in Scotland is almost £7,350 a year. I rejoice at the growth in the time of our Government. However, the figures are 20 per cent. higher than the average for the United Kingdom and 25 per cent. higher than the average for England, including the east midlands, which has a similar population and is also socially and economically similar to Scotland. When will the Government announce how they intend to bridge the public expenditure gap and deficit between English regions that are similar to Scotland and Scotland? Do not we deserve a debate on Barnett?

I think I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He has demonstrated how accountancy is actually interesting. However, I hope that, when he considers Government distribution of funds, including north of the border, he will take account of the fact that a comparison of population is not the only important factor; geographical considerations must also be taken into account. The Government constantly review the statistics—that is why they are published—to ensure fairness and consistency throughout the country.

May we have a debate on the amount of Government money that was wasted on preparing for self-invested personal pension schemes on residential property prior to the Chancellor's welcome U-turn in the Budget?

I am delighted that financial advisers have someone who is prepared to speak on their behalf in the House. Indeed, there now appear to be two people who are willing to do that. I emphasise that decisions about ensuring proper provision for pensions are difficult. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes into account the overall financial consequences of the decisions and decides accordingly.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Department of Trade and Industry to consider closely tips and the minimum wage, as mentioned in early-day motion 1132, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) and I tabled and which gathered 115 signatures from hon. Members of all parties?

[That this House views with concern the ongoing situation whereby tips, service charges, gratuities or cover charges in the hospitality industry count towards the minimum wage if paid through the payroll; recognises that many of the two million people who work in the hospitality industry are denied the benefit of the tips which customers give under the impression that it will be paid as an additional payment to staff on top of their wages; and calls on the Government to amend Regulation 31 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Statutory Instrument 1999 No 584) to ensure that all tips, service charges, gratuities, or cover charges are paid to staff in addition to their minimum wage regardless of the method of payment used by the place of employment.]

It is clearly an anomaly that we introduced the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and then allowed regulation 31(1)(e) of the 1999 regulations to provide that tips and gratuities paid through the wage bill be counted towards the minimum wage. It is time that the matter was tackled. I asked the Prime Minister about it yesterday and he said that the Low Pay Commission would consider it. It is a matter of simple legislation to remove the appalling anomaly from people's relationship with the work force and workplace of hospitality workers. If we do that shortly, we will garner the pleasure and commendation of those in the hospitality industry.

My hon. Friend raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. My right hon. Friend undertook—I repeat the undertaking—that the Government would consider the matter carefully. I agree that it appears that there could be an improvement in the arrangements for the minimum wage in the sector that my hon. Friend mentioned. I assure him that we are considering the matter carefully.

The Leader of the House knows the importance that my constituency and businesses in the highlands and islands attach to regular and frequent flights between Gatwick and Heathrow airports and Inverness. The pathetically inadequate guidance that the Department for Transport sneaked out today does nothing to protect that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport comes to the House to answer questions or to hold a debate on that important subject rather than hiding behind a written statement?

I can also offer the services of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The co-ordination provided to Scotland by a Secretary of State who is responsible for both Scotland and transport is important. As one would expect, he takes seriously the arrangements for Scotland and communication. I am sure that he will be willing to deal with the matter when the hon. Gentleman raises it with him.

In Iraq today, citizens will vote in their general election and they will not use the first-past-the-post system. In the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly do not use the first-past-the-post system. In 2007, people who vote in local elections in Scotland will not use that system. We have the unfinished business of the reform of the House of Lords. Whatever the elected element, no one argues for the first-past-the post system. Is not it time that we had a debate in the House on the merit of the respective systems for national and local elections in England?

My hon. Friend regularly asks me questions. It is fair to say that his scientific knowledge exceeds mine and I therefore have to make a stab at an answer. However, I feel on stronger ground on this subject, which has fascinated some hon. Members for a long time. I was once a member of a commission that examined the various arrangements that could be introduced for proportional representation and, if I had an hour or two, I could probably go through them all. However, there is a clear debate to be held about the principle. It goes on and the Government take it seriously.

While Windsor is a relatively affluent constituency, its population is relatively elderly. The complex tax credit and benefit system causes a great deal of stress and anxiety for the elderly, the least well-off and the most vulnerable in our society. One in 10 people suffer from dyslexia or some form of learning disability and one in three will suffer from depression at some point in their lives. May we hold a debate on the tension, stress, anxiety and effect on quality of life of the tax and benefit system because it is tantamount to torture for the most vulnerable in society?

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises an important issue in so far as it affects the elderly in our communities. Perhaps he did not do his view justice when he failed to compare the tension, stress and anxiety to which he referred with that caused by poverty, being unable to afford proper fuel through the winter and having insufficient income to provide for oneself. The Government have made a difference to each matter, whereas those who spoke for the hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Front Bench in the past opposed each change. It is therefore important, when we discuss help for the elderly, that he acknowledges the significant improvements that the Government have made in our time in office.

May we have a debate on rail passenger transport to show the importance of increasing capacity on the rail lines? Perhaps in that debate we could consider the disgraceful position whereby the rolling stock removed from the c2c line has still not been returned to it. That scandal means that people in my constituency have to stand on the train for more than 40 minutes every day, which poses safety problems and is inconvenient for them.