With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement altering the business of the House for tomorrow in the interests of restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland:

Tuesday 27 March—Consideration of a business of the House motion. Followed by proceedings on the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) (No.2) Bill followed by conclusion of the Budget Statement. Followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) (No.2) Bill.

The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been signified.

The business for Wednesday and Thursday remains unchanged and as previously announced.

Wednesday 28 March—Motions relating to communications allowance, notices of questions during September, Select Committees (Reports) and parliamentary contributory pension fund. Followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument on casinos.

Thursday 29 March—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.

The House will recall that the St. Andrews agreement set out a timetable for devolution; and the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 set in statute the date for the restoration of devolution as 26 March—in other words, today. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have repeatedly made it clear that, nine years after the Good Friday agreement and following countless rounds of talks and negotiations, the point has been reached where substance has to take over from process. Both my right hon. Friends have stated in categorical terms—and I have underlined in the House—that if the path to devolution today as laid out by the British and Irish Governments were not followed, the parties would have to reach agreement on a way forward themselves.

Our way, which in November Parliament endorsed without dissent in the 2006 Act, has been clear: that if devolution did not happen today, dissolution would happen tomorrow. That is why I made it clear, both last Thursday and the Thursday before, that the Government planned no emergency legislation as the Democratic Unionist party had requested—a position reaffirmed to its leadership team in a meeting last Wednesday by the Prime Minister.

In the long and difficult history of Northern Ireland, our approach to date has been based on a reality—that up to now there has never been a consensus or a way forward agreed between the parties. All the achievements since the 1998 Good Friday agreement, however momentous, have depended on the two Governments calling it as they thought best. Until today, that approach has been the only one available because the parties themselves have been unwilling to do so their own way.

However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was informed earlier today that an agreed way forward to devolution has now been found. The leaders of the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein—the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—met for very the first time this morning at Stormont, and have agreed to participate in a power-sharing agreement on 8 May. Right hon. and hon. Members will recognise the extraordinary significance of that. Many in the House and beyond would never have expected such a development in their lifetimes. The fact that it has been achieved is a tribute not only to the work of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State but to their predecessors in both Labour and Conservative Administrations who, throughout the past 35 years, worked tirelessly to bring about a settlement that would allow devolution to be restored and to end direct rule in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, it is a tribute to the commitment of all the political parties in Northern Ireland.

This morning, following their meeting, the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein together asked Her Majesty’s Government to introduce emergency legislation immediately to give effect to their agreement. To achieve that within the framework put in place last November by Parliament in the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, it is essential that the necessary changes to that Act be made by midnight tomorrow. I am therefore proposing to the House a change to the Order Paper tomorrow to allow a very short technical Bill to be considered to put the necessary changes in place. My noble Friend the Chief Whip in the Lords will make a similar request in the other place.

I appreciate that this is an exceptional situation—but these are exceptional circumstances. If the representatives of Unionism, republicanism and nationalism can reach agreement on what the whole House will hope will be a final political settlement in Northern Ireland through a shared future, it is right that this House should do all that it can to facilitate that in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. A Bill will therefore be put before the House tomorrow with the aim of Royal Assent before midnight. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will cover all the key points during consideration of the Bill, I am sure that the whole House will understand that tomorrow’s oral statement, of which I gave notice last Thursday, will now not take place.

As the Leader of the House has said, this is a significant day for Northern Ireland, and we welcome the fact that agreement has been achieved, and that devolution will now be restored in Northern Ireland. As the Leader of the House has done, I pay tribute to all those, across Governments and parties, who have worked to that end. We, too, want the legislation passed through Parliament, and we will co-operate to ensure that it gets through in the required time.

Important though the new emergency legislation is for Northern Ireland, the Leader of the House’s statement has implications for the rest of our business this week. The introduction of a new Bill tomorrow will have particular implications for our debate on the Budget. What is proposed will cut short that debate, especially were the Government to meet the expectation of many right hon. and hon. Members for a statement on the capture of armed forces by Iran.

Why does the Leader of the House intend to cut debate on the Budget short? Surely we should ensure that the time for that debate is protected, and he has options to do that. He could, of course, extend the time for debate tomorrow. Preferably, Parliament’s sitting this week could be extended: we could sit on Friday, or on Monday of next week. Agreement in Northern Ireland, and agreement on a restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, is a significant step, but should not be an excuse for the Government to ride roughshod over Parliament and shorten debate on the Budget. We welcome the agreement, and we will co-operate in getting the legislation through, but I urge the Leader of the House to look again at the order of business for this week.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, for the principle of what we propose tomorrow. As I said in my opening statement, we pay tribute to the Conservative Administrations and Opposition for the constructive part that they have played in achieving what is a historic moment. I reassure the right hon. Lady and the Opposition, who I know are anxious to debate every last detail of the Budget, as, indeed, are we, that we are ready to extend tomorrow’s parliamentary day by a significant amount. The timing can be agreed between the usual channels in the usual constructive way. I hope that that helps the House. We will also consider whether to make a statement on Iran.

I, too, thank the Leader of the House for his brief statement. What has been achieved in Northern Ireland appears to be both extraordinary and welcome news, and we very much hope that it comes to fruition. It is right to put on record our appreciation to all concerned, in all parties, who have worked so hard to achieve a result.

The Liberal Democrats have been sceptical about deadlines. We were sceptical last time, and we would be even more sceptical were another deadline to be reached and passed without resolution. I believe that the country would expect us to put aside any consideration of the order of business in order to accommodate what might be an historic settlement, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that that must not, and need not, be at the expense of giving proper consideration to the Budget. Do I understand from what the Leader of the House said that he will fully protect the time set aside for the Budget debate tomorrow? If not, will he consider having a later sitting on Wednesday so that we can conclude the Budget debate and the Divisions on the Budget resolutions without losing any of the time that has been set aside for the other matters that are due to be debated on that day? It would be extremely helpful if he were to make that clear.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. As for scepticism about deadlines, I think that the whole House will agree that were it not for the very clear deadline that was set in the St. Andrews agreement Act, it is unlikely that these very constructive events would have taken place. I have already said that we are willing to extend the parliamentary day tomorrow, but I cannot agree that there will be exact, minute-for-minute injury time. We are working on that, but it is a matter for the Whips of the different parties to agree. We recognise that the time for tomorrow’s debate on the Budget might need to be extended. As for statements, hon. Members know that statements and urgent questions are bound to eat into the normal public business. That is a straightforward reality.

As it is important that there should be adequate debate on the important Northern Ireland measure, which we all welcome, why does not the Leader of the House follow the precedent that we used at Christmas, when we resumed the Queen’s Speech debate after it was interrupted for Northern Ireland legislation? Why not resume the Budget debate on Wednesday and devote tomorrow to this historic event?

We have to get the whole thing through tomorrow, which means that we have to debate it early so that the other place can then debate it. It is a very short Bill—[Hon. Members: “Start early.”] I am in favour of starting early and finishing late, but others in this place have taken different decisions on that. However, that is another debate.

We have to debate the Bill first in the order of business, after any statements or urgent questions, and it must then go to the other place. Any amendments have to come back to us, and there may be some ping-pong between the Houses, although we hope not. In that situation, it makes sense to continue debating the Budget. This does not really compare with what happened in November, because that Bill was much longer and more complicated.

Clearly, these are exciting times. The Leader of the House is absolutely right to bring in the emergency legislation tomorrow—I am sure that it will have the full support of the whole House. However, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for his comments that the Budget debate should be concluded on Wednesday. I say gently to the Leader of the House that there is not very important business on Wednesday; indeed, we might be doing a great favour to the Patronage Secretary by withdrawing the debate on the casino order, which she might well lose.

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my answer: quite important—very important—Government business is tabled for Wednesday, and I think it would be convenient for the whole House if it were dealt with on that day.

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the personal contribution of John Major, who is generally recognised to have started the process that should lead to sustainable peace in Northern Ireland? Will he also reconsider the business tabled for later this week? As one of the usual suspects when it comes to the Easter Adjournment debate, I can assure him that we should be very happy to sacrifice some or all of that debate to accommodate other business this week, so that the Budget debate is not curtailed.

It is nice that the hon. Gentleman should think that the amount of time available for debate on constituency and wider issues on the motion for the Easter Adjournment is in his gift. In any event, I shall bear in mind what he said.

Of course I pay tribute to John Major. I did so in general, but I am happy to do so in particular as well. His was a very significant contribution to what has happened today.

The Leader of the House’s historic announcement of the legislation for tomorrow is obviously welcome on both sides of the House, as is his agreement to make a concession on the time for debate on the Budget, but may I return him to the question from my right hon. Friend the Shadow Leader of the House and ask for an assurance that none of this will compromise time for a statement on what has happened to the 15 service men who have been seized by the Iranians? Many of us will want to ask questions about, for instance, the rules of engagement that made that possible.

The granting of time for an urgent question is a matter for you and you alone, Mr. Speaker. As for the issue of a statement, there must be a statement this week, and we are discussing with the usual channels which would be the most appropriate day for it.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Zimbabwe. I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the Liberal Democrats received a copy in good time.

As the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, what is happening in Zimbabwe is appalling, disgraceful and utterly tragic for its people. My noble Friend Lord Triesman, Minister responsible for Africa, noted on 12 March that it was a direct consequence of Mugabe’s own approach and of his disregard for the suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans. What we are seeing is a wilful waste of Zimbabwe’s assets and potential by a ZANU-PF Government who have substituted plunder and corruption for a programme of economic and social advancement for its people.

Hunger and malnutrition are all that millions of Zimbabweans now experience in their daily lives, and Mugabe and his regime are directly responsible. They are directly responsible for Zimbabwe’s economy being in free fall: the economy shrank by 40 per cent. in less than a decade, and will shrink by a further 5 per cent. this year. Inflation is already at 3,000 per cent., and the International Monetary Fund says that it will breach 5,000 per cent. by the end of this year. They are directly responsible for circumstances in which a quarter of the resident population is dependent on food aid, and a quarter has already fled the country. They are directly responsible for an unemployment rate of over 80 per cent., the third highest in the world. It is little wonder that there has been an exodus over the Limpopo river. They are directly responsible for Zimbabwe’s having the world’s highest orphan rate, largely as a consequence of the pandemic rate of AIDS: roughly 20 per cent. of adults are infected. They are directly responsible for circumstances in which Zimbabweans can expect to die younger than anyone else on the planet. A Zimbabwean woman today can expect to live to just 34, while a Zimbabwean man can expect to live to 37. However, instead of taking the necessary measures to reverse each of those evolving tragedies, the regime continues to make people homeless, suppress independent media, harass human rights defenders and arbitrarily arrest those involved in peaceful demonstrations.

The violence and repression used against peaceful protesters gathering to pray for change during the weekend of 10-11 March, during which at least one young person was shot and killed, has continued unabated. Four members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change have been prevented from leaving Zimbabwe, including one MP, Nelson Chamisa, who was badly beaten when travelling to a meeting in Brussels. I am pleased to note that the MDC’s vice-president was able to take his place: we salute his bravery and that of his colleagues.

A significant number of activists are still being arrested and beaten throughout Zimbabwe. Lawyers representing those who have been detained have themselves faced intimidation. Trade union and student union members have also been harassed and arrested. My noble Friend Lord Triesman summoned the Zimbabwean ambassador to register our disgust,

As I did during my address to the Human Rights Council on 13 March, I send my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the last two weeks of terrible assault, and offer my solidarity to all Zimbabweans on behalf of everyone in the House. Mugabe’s men might break the bones of the democracy campaigners, but they cannot break the quiet dignity of these extraordinary human beings. One day, Zimbabwe will return to democracy; Zimbabweans will be free. Mugabe knows that. He knows that he has got it wrong, and that the crisis has resulted in an increase in internal pressure. He feels more vulnerable. The involvement of the military in almost all aspects of Zimbabwe life—from running state businesses and economic programmes to agriculture and food distribution—underlines that.

What does Mugabe do? He blames everyone else, especially us in the United Kingdom. He persistently alleges that the UK is responsible for Zimbabwe’s woes—that we are somehow victimising him for his disastrous fast-track land reform policies. That is simply not true. We have always recognised the need for an equitable redistribution of land, but that has to be done in a transparent, legal manner. We signed up to all three of the internationally recognised land reform packages: in 1979, 1998 and 2001. The UK gave a total of £44 million to the first of them. About £3 million was returned unspent in the mid-1990s when the Zimbabwean Government lost interest in proper land reform. We were also willing to support the package put together by the United Nations Development Programme in 2001, but Mugabe’s violent land invasions put a halt to that.

Let us look for a moment at Mugabe’s claims that the crisis is down to us. It was his Government—not the UK—who displaced and destroyed the homes and livelihoods of 700,000 people during Operation Murambatsvina, which I understand means “drive out the filth”. It is the Government of Zimbabwe—not the UK—who previously refused to appeal to the UN for food aid despite widely reported food shortages. It is the Government of Zimbabwe—not the UK—who have crushed a free media. It is the Government of Zimbabwe—not the UK—who deny Zimbabweans their basic rights of freedom of expression and assembly by routinely and violently breaking up peaceful protests. It is the Government of Zimbabwe—not the UK—who have ignored IMF recommendations to reform an imploding economy. It is they who continue to squander the country’s limited foreign exchange while ordinary Zimbabweans can scarcely afford food. It is the Government of Zimbabwe—not the UK—who destroyed property rights by removing land from the legal process. It is they—not the UK—who have ruined the Zimbabwean agricultural sector; agricultural productivity has fallen by a staggering 80 per cent. since 1998.

Since 2000, more than 250,000 black commercial farm workers have lost their livelihoods. Including families, that means that there has been a rural displacement of about 1 million people, to match the urban dislocation of 700,000. Of course, while the Government of Zimbabwe continue to blame the international community, the European Union and the UK Government for their troubles, in each case we are taking action to improve life on the ground for ordinary Zimbabweans.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week, there is considerable concern throughout the international community about the situation in Zimbabwe. The United Kingdom is greatly concerned about the situation there, but those concerns are shared by the whole of the European Union, by the African Union—sadly, those concerns have not always been expressed as loudly as they might be—by the United Nations and by the rest of the international community.

Ministers and officials are in constant contact with our African counterparts, emphasising the risks to regional stability and the importance of Zimbabwe’s African neighbours taking a more direct role in addressing the crisis in Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister last week wrote to President Mbeki and spoke with President Kikwete of Tanzania on this issue. We recognise the difficulties in challenging Mugabe bilaterally, but without the engagement of the Southern African Development Community, with its commitment to promoting good governance and respect for human rights and the rule of law, the situation will deteriorate further. We therefore welcome the visit of the chair of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security, President Kikwete, to Harare on 15 March. With President Mbeki of South Africa, he has proposed an initiative to encourage internal dialogue between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change on policy reform, but quick progress is necessary if that is to have an impact. Mugabe is a master of denial and delay. The Zambian President has recently called Zimbabwe a “sinking Titanic”—an apt description, indeed.

On the European Union, despite the claims of Mugabe about illegal economic sanctions imposed by the EU, let us be clear: the EU has no economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. They exist only in his mind. The EU does not prevent western companies, including British ones, from doing business with Zimbabwe, which in fact has a trade surplus with the UK. The EU does have an arms sales ban, and a travel ban and an assets freeze on leading members of the regime. While those targeted measures have had no impact on the Zimbabwean economy, they show that the EU is serious about human rights. Zimbabwean civil society organisations support those measures because they are focused on the destroyers of Zimbabwean society and not on its suffering people. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on Tuesday and the Prime Minister repeated the next day, we will look to add to these targeted measures. We are pushing for, and expect there to be, progress on the addition of extra names to the EU visa ban list, again pressurising the regime without impacting on ordinary Zimbabweans.

On the actions of the UK Government, let the House be clear: we are doing all that we can to relieve the suffering of the Zimbabwean people. The UK is one of the three largest donors to Zimbabwe, and, contrary to the claims of some, that money is making a real difference to the lives of ordinary people in Zimbabwe. For some, that money is quite literally the difference between life and death, and the House should be proud of that contribution.

In the past five years, the Department for International Development has committed more than £143 million to humanitarian programmes, including food aid, life-saving vaccines, support for orphans and vulnerable children, and agricultural inputs to the poorest farmers. We have also provided £37 million to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Of the €200 million given by the EU last year, the UK alone disbursed nearly €60 million in bilateral assistance—hardly the actions of a country not interested in the affairs of Zimbabwe; far less one with a bilateral grievance.

As the Foreign Secretary made clear on Tuesday, our aid is channelled through United Nations and NGO agencies to escape the clutches of the regime. I want to stress that our food aid is not a part of the ZANU-PF programme to use food as a means to force support or to punish opposition. It is also clear that not only are innocent Zimbabweans suffering, but the tragedy in Zimbabwe is having a significant impact on the region: both a direct impact with mass migration, and a consequent social impact in terms of HIV, malnutrition, safety and the education of children, to name but a few factors. As Zimbabwe disintegrates, those impacts will increase.

The UK shares the region’s desire to see Zimbabwe’s recovery—there is no other UK agenda. Our concerns are for the ordinary Zimbabweans and their suffering at the hands of a regime determined to pursue policies that hurt rather than help them. We stand ready to help, with our international partners, but only when there is an environment inside Zimbabwe in which that assistance will be effective.

Until the Zimbabwean regime changes course, we will maintain the international spotlight on them, and increase Mugabe’s isolation. In that vein, I welcome France’s decision not to invite Mugabe to the February France-Africa summit, which sent a clear signal that this woeful governance will not be tolerated. However, as I and others, including the Prime Minister, have made clear, the Zimbabwean crisis cannot be solved by the UK. Those sentiments were echoed by the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, who told the BBC on 18 March:

“I have repeatedly said that the British government cannot be seen to be at the forefront in confronting Robert Mugabe alone. I’ve always said that that will be misconstrued as a colonial resuscitation of the same situation again. So I always say that Britain, together with the rest of the international community, the African Union, and the rest of the international community have to act together.”

So we in this House and elsewhere must be careful that, while expressing our outrage at recent events and at the downward spiral of Zimbabwe, we do not do or say anything that will hand a propaganda tool to Robert Mugabe. We will continue to exert pressure in international forums, including the United Nations —we expect a tough EU statement on the Human Rights Council this week, and a humanitarian briefing on the UN Security Council next week—the African Union and the European Union, and with international partners, until democracy is restored to Zimbabwe. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that whoever governs Zimbabwe does so in a way that guarantees a better future for all Zimbabweans: a democratic and accountable Government, and policies that ensure economic stability and development, not humanitarian misery.

My generation was the first to be born not as children of the empire, but as children of the Commonwealth. When I first became involved in political life, the struggle against colonialism, and the struggle of the peoples in southern Africa who were subjugated by racist regimes, were an inspiration to me and to my generation. As time went by, we celebrated as Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and the fighters came out of the bush to create a new democratic future for their people.

That is why it is so hard for me personally to watch what is happening in Zimbabwe today. Uniquely, the people whom we once cheered as liberators are now the oppressors who have taken away the voice of the Zimbabwean people. Brave Zimbabweans are speaking up for their freedom. They are looking to their African neighbours to help. We are playing our part in the international community.

In 1980, Zimbabwe proudly proclaimed its independence. Tragically, 27 years later, its people have still to gain their freedom.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the generous amount of time that he allowed the Opposition to have advance sight of his statement. I am sure that the whole House will join him in his condemnation of the Mugabe regime. Like the rest of the international community, we have been shocked by the regime’s brutal tactics, the country’s chronic food shortages and staggeringly high inflation and unemployment, and the increasing Government repression of all forms of dissent.

All Zimbabweans are suffering as a result of the Government-made, deteriorating economic, political and humanitarian situation, which has now become so desperate that Archbishop Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo, said last week that he was

“ready to stand in front, even of blazing guns”

to force President Mugabe to step down.

I turn to some specific questions. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the international community’s response to 27 years of Mugabe misrule, although well intentioned, has been unable to prevent the situation from deteriorating, and that decisive action is now needed? Is not it the case that, although the Government have done the things the Minister outlined today, they could have done more? What we are looking for now is that all his good words in the House today are matched by action.

I welcome the Minister’s statement that the UK is pushing for additional EU sanctions. Will they include widening the scope of the assets freeze? We have heard the rumour that the financial sanctions currently affect only 400 bank accounts, covering £210,000. Surely the Government could do more in that respect.

Will people who have residence and visitor’s permits in the UK and who are on the list of banned people have their permits and passports withdrawn? Will the Minister assure the House that no member of ZANU-PF, including President Mugabe and anyone on the EU sanctions list, will be invited to the EU-AU summit in Portugal later this year? If they were, it would make a mockery of the travel bans.

Will the Minister urge Zimbabwe’s neighbours to make a concerted effort to resolve the crisis, and to exploit their many points of influence with the Mugabe regime? Will he now make the case that the consequences of a total collapse in Zimbabwe will fall heavily upon them and their regimes, and will he urge them to put pressure on the Mugabe regime to block the extension of his rule and engage in talks with the Opposition? Can he confirm that the UK is strongly conveying that message, particularly to the Government of South Africa? Is not it vital that the international community present a united front in pursuing a clear strategy that increases the penalties on the Mugabe leadership? Could he have a system of incentives and disincentives clearly linked to sanctions, so that the international community can ratchet up their actions? Can he confirm reports that the UK, along with other nations, is working with moderate members of ZANU-PF to discuss the possibility of agreeing a power-sharing transitional Government? Does he agree that any change in the Government will ultimately come from the actions of the Zimbabwe people themselves? Finally, does he agree that the international community should stand by, ready and planning to work as partners to lift and help Zimbabwe out of the unimaginable poverty in which it finds itself today as soon as genuine partners with whom we can work in Zimbabwe emerge?

Does the Minister agree that, like the iron curtain around the Soviet Union, once the tide starts flowing, it is unstoppable? Is not it high time for the 83-year old Mugabe to retire now?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive statement of support for the Government’s strategy. All of us in the House, whatever our political persuasion, want to do everything possible to ensure engagement with South Africa and other front-line states, which is why the steps taken by the Presidents of Tanzania and South Africa in the past few days are important.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that Mugabe see that it is not just the west, and Britain in particular, that is trying to get a regime change: it is a matter for the Zimbabwean people and those in the region. When Mugabe goes, he must be replaced with a regime that respects human rights and human dignity, and has the capacity to represent the interests of all Zimbabweans and all civil society.

The hon. Gentleman is right about another matter. Alongside working in that respect, it is important that the international community have a twin-track approach. It is important that Zimbabwe should not implode when its leadership changes. That means working as a united force—the UN, the south African states and the European Union—to ensure that, alongside the transitional change, arrangements are in place, first, to stabilise the country, and, secondly, to ensure that the transition benefits the Zimbabwean people and does not result in further dispersal, dispute and violence. It is important that we do those two things together.

On the targeted measures that the hon. Gentleman raised, I made it absolutely clear that we want to see further targeted measures and we are discussing that with our European Union colleagues and others. It is important that we do so. I will keep the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrat spokesman informed—it is not a secret. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I want to work with every party in the House to ensure that maximum pressure is put on the regime. That means working together and trusting each other to get the best result for the Zimbabwean people. That includes the issues about targeting.

The hon. Gentleman did not raise this point, but in the context of targeted measures, it is important to remember that, as well as a travel ban—I hope that we will add names to the travel ban—there is also an issue about some of the children the regime benefits from. As well as adding other names, it is important to consider seriously whether the children of the worst offenders should be included on the list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider that.

Let us be quite clear that it is critical that the EU-Africa summit take place, because we want to discuss good governance, regional peace and security, development and integration, education, health and immigration in Africa as a whole. We should not let Zimbabwe or Robert Mugabe capture that important agenda. I said what I said about France for a specific reason, and I want to be absolutely clear about it: I want the summit to take place—not as a platform for Mugabe, but as a platform for Africa to work with the European Union. The summit does not take place till November or December, so we should not make hasty decisions. We should work with our colleagues who will have the presidency at that time—the Portuguese Government—to ensure that the EU-African Union summit takes place. I hope that there will be a place there for Zimbabwe, but a different type of Zimbabwe.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Secretary of State found out anything more about the Angolan troop situation? Does my right hon. Friend share my regret at the seeming reluctance of the Commonwealth Secretariat to engage in Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe did not leave the Commonwealth; she was abducted by Mugabe, just as South Africa was abducted by Verwoerd. In the case of South Africa, the Commonwealth never accepted the abduction. The then Prime Minister of Canada said:

“We shall leave a candle in the window for South Africa.”

Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Commonwealth Secretariat has been unwilling to leave a candle in the window for Zimbabwe?

I checked up on the reports about Angola, because it was important to do so. The Angolan authorities tell us that the reports are completely false, but I know that hon. Members raised the issue legitimately and in the right spirit. We went back to our post in Rwanda and spoke to the Angolan authorities who said—I repeat—that the reports about troops were false.

We are working actively with the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is critical that not just the Commonwealth Secretariat, but our colleagues in the Southern African Development Community and in the African Union, along with us in the European Union, make progress over the coming days to get the dialogue going about the situation in Zimbabwe so that it can move on to a new leadership, new politics and a new type society. As I tried to outline in my remarks to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), that should be done in a way that does not undermine further the ability of Zimbabweans to see through the crisis and get to a different place.

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in thanking the Minister for an advance copy of the statement. The Minister has made a powerful case against Mugabe this afternoon and the whole House will be grateful to him for doing that. He did not pull his punches in his description of Mugabe’s monstrous regime. I invite him to be more robust about the countries of southern Africa. Frankly, people are despairing at South Africa’s softly-softly approach, in particular. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about Angola, it is alarmed by the past week’s reports of closer security co-operation between the two countries.

Does the Minister agree that despite the sensitivities—we accept that humanitarian briefings in the Security Council are important—Britain has to force the pace on extending sanctions not only in the European Union, but at the Security Council, so that Mugabe and all his regime can be held to account? It has been reported today that to facilitate Mugabe’s political demise, he might get some sort of deal letting him off the hook for all his crimes against humanity, which would surely be an appalling prospect for all of us. Will the Minister confirm that neither the United Kingdom nor the European Union would support such a tawdry arrangement?

Let me take the hon. Gentleman’s last point first. We are not holding discussions about giving immunity to Mugabe or any other member of the regime. However, our first act must surely be to assist efforts internationally and in the region itself so that we get to a position in which Mugabe is no longer in power. However, that should be achieved by the Zimbabwean people with the support of the international community. That will be an important first step, yet what happens after that, in terms of our contingency planning, ongoing support for the people of Zimbabwe and the problems flowing from the excesses of the regime, is important. I am not dodging the question, but as the hon. Gentleman indicated, we must ensure that South Africa and the other countries in the region—this is critically important—and China and other countries are in a position in which they will come along with ourselves and the European Union on multilateral action to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe once and for all. That is the priority. We must not provide anyone with a loophole or a bolthole so that things become more difficult than they are at the moment.

We will take each step in turn. The first step is to get momentum going with regard to what the hon. Gentleman said. That was why I was robust in negotiations to ensure that the Human Rights Council, which is sitting at the moment, debates Zimbabwe before its session breaks up in June. It will be important for us to pursue the matter in the Security Council early next week—of course, South Africa is its chair at the moment. Over the next few days, it will be critical for us to maintain our pressure on the international community to come together on Zimbabwe.

The hon. Gentleman asks us to be robust. I am robust as any Member, but I am acutely aware that I want to be robust in such a way that it will make a difference. I do not want to be robust and thus give someone an excuse. It is easy to get a clap or a nod of approval in here. As I said in my statement, we should not say or do anything that would give anyone the opportunity not to participate in this international effort to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe.

What countries will be represented at the regional conference and what issues will actually be discussed? It has been a long time since we first started thinking about tightening up the sanctions. Why has it taken so long to do that?

The European Union sanctions are a matter for the EU as a whole. We will have to wait to find out what comes out of the debates in the Human Rights Council and the Security Council. However, my hon. Friend can rest assured that from our perspective, as I said in my statement and in reply to the hon. Member for Cotswold, we want to maximise our ability to extend the bans and to examine other measures. We want to take colleagues with us. It is important that the action is multilateral and that it is seen that that action is being taken by the international community, not just by ourselves.

I served in 1979 to try to bring Zimbabwe back to democracy and I am horrified by the state that we are in now. I must say to the Government that I think that we have dragged our heels unnecessarily over the years. Does the Minister agree that surely the time has come to deal directly with South Africa and the other neighbours and to say to them very simply, as a process of limit diplomacy, that it is time for them to put real pressure on Zimbabwe? If they do not do so, perhaps we should examine again the programmes, such as aid programmes, that are going in their direction and say, “It’s a two-way street. Either you act, or we act.”

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution in his previous roles, but I disagree entirely with his last remark. I am all for putting increased pressure on people in the region to take their responsibilities seriously, and that is why, as I said, the Prime Minister has already been in contact with President Mbeki and has already had discussions with the President of Tanzania, and there will be other such discussions to follow. However, what we cannot and will not do is withdraw our important international aid activity, whether it is dealing with HIV/AIDS in South Africa, or with pandemic AIDS and TB. We will not take action against the ordinary citizens of any country in Africa simply to get at Mugabe’s regime. That is playing entirely into his hands, and that is the kind of suggestion that I tried to allude to earlier. Such suggestions are not only unhelpful, but are nonsense, given what we are trying to do.

In view of reports that ZANU-PF might itself move to get rid of Mugabe, will my right hon. Friend set out the principles that the UK Government and others will expect from an incoming Government, particularly in respect of the move to full and free elections in Zimbabwe? Some of us are concerned that people in ZANU-PF who have benefited greatly from the regime might try to ensure regime change to protect their own position, whereas most people, obviously, want a move to a truly democratic Zimbabwe, with a return to peace and security for the millions of Zimbabweans.

I am absolutely certain that there are some people within the regime who would like regime change but who would like to simply carry on with the policies that have led Zimbabwe to a position of international isolation. That country, which was able to feed itself, and which used to be the bread basket of Africa, now cannot even feed its own nation, and has an AIDS pandemic and a life expectancy of 34 years for a woman, and 37 years for a man.

Let me be absolutely clear that any regime change, which has to come from inside and not outside the country, has to result in a Government who recognise the human rights of all their citizens, who recognise opposition and the freedom of the press, who have the capacity to work with the international community to rebuild their shattered economy, and who have the ability to treat with respect and dignity all the people in Zimbabwe who want to make a contribution to the rebuilding of their country. No individual or organisation can simply take over and carry on as before. That is why it is important, as I said to the hon. Member for Cotswold, that alongside that effort, a second effort is made—an effort on the part of the international community to provide contingency plans on what support we can give to ensure that changes in government, and any transition that takes place, are sustainable on the grounds that I have set out.

In associating the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the Minister’s description of the woeful circumstances in Zimbabwe, may I press him for details of the plan that he has mentioned a number of times? Surely it will take a plan of Marshall plan application to make a real difference to the country when regime change takes place. Does he not think that it is time to tell the people of Zimbabwe about the degree of commitment outside the country to helping them back to the circumstances in which they should live?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks of support from the nationalist parties, and I accept them in the spirit in which they were made. Contingency planning is at an early stage, and I do not want to give the impression that I have an all-singing, all-dancing plan. What I am trying to allude to is the fact that, as well as bearing in mind the diplomatic issues to do with the regime, it is important that we do not simply wait until there is potential regime change, or indeed until there is a collapse, with all its consequences. We can already see the stresses and pressures on the front-line states around Zimbabwe as a result of migration and issues related to it. It is important that the international community, including the European Union, the United States and other large donors to Zimbabwe, think through what our contribution will be to assisting the transition to a democratic society and, with that, to preventing full-scale humanitarian disaster from occurring. That will be a huge effort.

For example, there are large numbers of elderly people in Zimbabwe, and given the collapse of the care system in Zimbabwe, what do we do to prevent those elderly people from becoming victims of any collapse? What do we do with young children, and what do we do in terms of restructuring, and in terms of those millions of people who have already left the country, and who need to return to be effective there? If they are to do so, a stable, incoming Government are needed. All those issues to do with contingency planning must be considered, as well as the issue of how the international community can best provide support for any new regime that takes over.

What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Home Secretary about the position of Zimbabwean citizens in this country? Last Friday at my surgery, three Zimbabwean citizens who had received letters from the Home Office asking that they be returned to Zimbabwe came to see me. They believe that they will be killed if they go back. Surely, now is the time, especially in view of my right hon. Friend’s statement, at which we should not return people to that dreadful country. Will he meet the Home Secretary to discuss that as a matter of urgency?

There are no forced returns of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe currently. Returns are suspended until the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal has made its judgment on a Court of Appeal case. We will continue to defer returns to Zimbabwe until that case is concluded, but we also continue to expect Zimbabweans who have no right to remain in the UK to leave voluntarily, and we encourage them to take advantage of the generous return and reintegration package. I do not have any details of my right hon. Friend’s case, but if he sends them to me, I will deal with it personally in the way in which he has asked me to do.

There are some 5,000 pensioners living in Zimbabwe who are world war two veterans and veterans of service with the Crown. Many of them are well over the age of 85, and they are being kept alive by charity. If there is a collapse of government and energy supplies, they will be at risk not within days or weeks but almost within hours. In addition to the measures that the Minister discussed a moment ago about longer-term contingency plans, can he assure the House something will be put in place almost immediately, because a collapse could take place tomorrow or the next day, and people will be vulnerable immediately? Are there plans for immediate support for people who look to Britain for support now, as they gave service to Britain so long ago?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, again, both for his question and for the tenor of it. I alluded in a previous answer to the fact that a key area for us is the elderly, and some of them are exactly the type of individual citizen to whom he referred. Given that assurance, the question of how best we can deal not just with the situation now but one that deteriorates even further is under active consideration. We are providing assistance at this moment in time, particularly in private care homes, where there are extreme difficulties, as the continuation of funding is a problem. The matter is a priority for our high commissioner, who is looking both at what we can do in contingency terms inside the borders of Zimbabwe and at what other actions need to be taken in those situations where people are extremely vulnerable.

When Chile suffered under the similarly brutal Pinochet dictatorship, we discovered that many British companies had been involved in providing the paraphernalia of repression to that Government—things such as riot police training, tear gas and so on. Is the Minister absolutely certain that no British company or British-domiciled person is in any way providing the paraphernalia of repression to Mugabe’s regime, and will he make sure that no other European country takes part in that repression, either?

There is an EU arms embargo, and it is critical both here and throughout the EU that companies respect it. It would be a breach of the embargo not to do so, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence of such action, I will investigate it. However, as far as we are concerned, there is a strong embargo that will remain in place and we may consider extending it.

The right hon. Gentleman has made the most outspoken criticism of the Mugabe regime that I have ever heard from a Minister in the House, and I congratulate him on it. Does he not agree that Mr. Mugabe has lost the support of the civilised world? He has lost the support of the overwhelming majority of African countries and of the majority of his own people—and even the majority in his own party—and is merely supported by a minority in his party. Can we not take a genuine initiative in dealing with African countries to indicate that we will do our best to help, if requested, in the supervision of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, to help with food aid and all the other necessary things to help to remove the suffering of the people?

For the second time in a week, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. There is nothing in his remarks that I disagree with. That is precisely what we are trying to do, in a multilateral way, where we play a very effective part, in order, first, to achieve democracy, secondly, to rebuild the country, and thirdly, to sustain the aid and support that we are giving and to extend that internationally. Fourthly, I cannot overemphasise the desire from the Prime Minister downwards in this regime to encourage South Africa and other front-line states to come up to the plate now. I am certain that that is happening. The important thing for us is to support it and take it forward, as I suggested in my opening statement and in my remarks since.

Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), may I bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that I have a constituent who is still threatened with deportation to Zimbabwe? He is a man who is suffering from serious mental illness. As far as we can tell, there are no mental health facilities at all in Zimbabwe at present. Home Office Ministers have refused even to meet me about the case. If there is such a suspension as the Minister referred to, will he make sure that Home Office Ministers know about it?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I do not know the circumstances of the case. Irrespective of my ministerial responsibilities, I will raise the specific case with my Home Office counterparts. Hon. Members are entitled to see Ministers, whatever their responsibilities. There is an open-door policy in that respect. I will take back the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and ensure that he receives an appropriate response from the Minister concerned.

Can the Minister confirm that Robert Mugabe’s daughter, Bona Mugabe, is currently studying at the London School of Economics, and if so, can he say who is paying?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I understand that that is the case. On the second part, I am not certain so I cannot answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library of the House. In response to the hon. Member for Cotswold I said, without prompting, that we should seriously consider extending the travel ban to children and other members of the family.

The Minister should be warmly commended for his robust criticism of the Mugabe regime and for pointing out that all the failings of Zimbabwe, which are causing such harm to its people, rest entirely with Mugabe and not with us or previous colonial rule. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it significant that the Archbishop of York, who has huge regional experience, has said that South Africa is in denial on these matters?

What the archbishop has done has been very helpful. Over the past few days and weeks—I do not mean just the past 10 days or the past fortnight—he and others have increasingly been speaking up and speaking out, demanding of South Africa and cajoling South Africa to take a more proactive role. That is exactly what has been happening in the past few days. That is why we must maintain and develop a relationship. That is why the Prime Minister has written to President Mbeki and why we have had discussions with the President of Tanzania. Further discussions will take place. It is critical, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to move to a point where those in the region take responsibility to assist the process of Mugabe leaving and getting a democratic, accountable Government in place.

If the Mugabe regime comes to an end or if for any other reason there is free access to deliver humanitarian aid on the scale that it is required in Zimbabwe, what plans are being put in place now to make sure that there can be a rapid increase in the level of that aid?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. On 23 March, we hosted in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a meeting of 10 countries to discuss contingency planning—the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, New Zealand and the European Commission. Those are the key donors in the region and also those which have representation in Harare. So we are already thinking about the twin-track approach that I spoke about in my statement.

Will the Minister consider talking to the Foreign Secretary, because one of them should go to South Africa during the forthcoming recess with the Archbishop of York to talk to Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and other prominent South Africans who have spoken out to try to put some pressure on the South African Government, who have the key?

To stop the hon. Gentleman fretting, I should say that I speak to the Foreign Secretary every day on a range of matters. [Hon. Members: “Commiserations!”] Hon. Gentlemen should not be so churlish. There will be a range of diplomatic activity, as there is now, and it will include ministerial involvement. As part of what I have promised the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, I will keep them abreast of continuing events, including ministerial engagement.

May I ask the Minister whether officials have consulted the International Criminal Court on whether charges can be formulated against Mugabe and his chief lieutenants? Although that might not lead to an actual prosecution, it would be a deterrent. On any view, Mugabe’s activities, while not as grave as those of Milosevic, are similar in kind.

That is a similar question to the one asked by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), although perhaps it is more direct. The ICC is the next stage; the first stage, which we must concentrate on, is the process of engaging with front-line states and people internally in Zimbabwe to get a new regime and a new Government following agreed democratic principles. Any issue that arises after that will be for discussion. This Government are the biggest supporter of the ICC. We have already resisted efforts not to have it operate in Darfur—where there has been clear potential for its activities—and in northern Uganda and other areas. We are big supporters of the ICC, but I would rather not speculate at this stage, when the priority is clearly the international effort working with South Africa, Tanzania and others to ensure a transition from Mugabe to democratic government in Zimbabwe.

Although I commend the Minister for his robust condemnation of the Mugabe regime, I am not alone in the House in thinking that the statement was one of the most empty that I have heard. I ask for specific action. I have a report that a Chinese-registered ship docked last week in Mozambique at Beira and off-loaded small arms destined for Harare. I have another report that a team of Israelis are going to Harare to advise on demonstration control and that, furthermore, they are sending tear gas from Israel to Harare to support the Government there. Will this Government investigate whether those reports are true, and if so raise the matter at the highest level with the Governments of Mozambique, Israel and—[Hon. Members: “China”]—China? Will they also ensure that such matters are raised at the United Nations and by the European Union, too?

The hon. Gentleman was rather churlish in saying that the statement was empty: helping to keep millions alive with £120 million-worth of aid is not empty rhetoric; helping to fight Zimbabwe’s AIDS pandemic is not empty rhetoric; supporting all those working for democratic change is not empty rhetoric; helping to isolate Mugabe on an international basis is not empty rhetoric; pressing the African Union to support efforts to allow the people of Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is not empty rhetoric; and pursuing the United Nations to increase pressure through the Security Council and the Human Rights Council is not empty rhetoric. The hon. Gentleman can by all means criticise, but he should do so on the basis of logic and not make partisan political points.

The Minister will be aware, as is everyone, that Zimbabwe is on the brink of both economic and institutional collapse. Is he aware that this could bring the country to collapse much more quickly and that, given what he said, we are apparently unprepared for what might happen? If at its meeting this week ZANU-PF’s central committee refuses to have Mugabe as the sole candidate in the forthcoming elections, and if at its own meeting in Tanzania the Southern African Development Community then votes for change, collapse would come even more quickly. What is the free western world going to do to help the people of Zimbabwe in these circumstances?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question; her points are well made. Such points are why I set out in my statement what we are doing and will continue to do, and the contingency planning that I set out in the meeting that was held in my Department on 23 March. We are well aware of the movement in the situation. Hon. Members may rest assured that all that we can do, ourselves and by working with the international community, will be done.

The infrastructure in Zimbabwe is now significant, and we are putting in significant resources. I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties that would be caused, not just in Zimbabwe but across the region, if the country were to go into free fall. That is why it is critical that we work in unison with the region to get a transition from Mugabe to a new Government in a way that does not cause total disruption or a complete implosion of society in Zimbabwe, difficult though that is. I assure the hon. Lady that all our efforts and aims are to that effect.

When visiting Zimbabwe in February 2004 I was privileged and inspired to meet the distinguished human rights lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa. Given that on only Tuesday of last week Beatrice was again brutally assaulted by police officers when seeking to serve court papers on them, is it not now time that South Africa led a united international community in issuing to Robert Mugabe a very simple message: “Quit now and count your lucky stars if members of the MDC are willing to be bigger in dealing with you than you have ever been in dealing with them”?

The hon. Gentleman takes a great deal of interest in these issues. The lady concerned is an extraordinary person; every day could be her last. Such is the regime’s disregard for human rights that it is not just those who want to campaign for rights; the attack is on the defenders of human rights too. That is why we have put substantial financial resources into supporting those human rights defenders—in addition to the other resources. I do not say that in a partisan way; I just want to make it clear that we are helping to resource their activities as well.

In the past few days, South African Minister Pahad made a substantial move forward, saying:

“South Africa urges the Zimbabwean government to ensure that the rule of law including the respect for rights of all Zimbabweans and leaders of various political parties is respected”.

They seem few words, but in terms of what has gone on in the past they represent a significant step forward. We hope to build on that, particularly in view of what the Prime Minister has set out in his letter to President Mbeki, and the discussion and debate that we are having with the South African Government at various levels and with the President of Tanzania.

Further to the question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the arrest and arraignment before a UN international court of Charles Taylor of Liberia creates the clear precedent that no Head of Government or Head of State is immune to trial by the international community for crimes against humanity.

The Minister may reflect that he might send out the wrong signal. It needs to be made very clear that Mugabe could be arraigned before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. That is not a matter for us; it is a matter for the ICC. The fact that he is a Head of State or a Head of Government no longer gives him immunity, and we must make it clear that where Heads of State or of Government trespass beyond what is acceptable in the 21st century, they will be brought to justice, as, hopefully, will Charles Taylor of Liberia.

I do not think that I could be any clearer about the Government’s support for the ICC. Its creation means that for the first time the world community is saying, in international terms, that there is no impunity for some of the activities of the most despotic leaderships of the world. That is why we took action in accepting international responsibility for Taylor when his trial comes and for the end of the trial; why we have been so firm with the Justice Minister and others in Darfur about their responsibility to work with the ICC; and why we have been so firm as regards the situation in northern Uganda. This Government are at the forefront of supporting the ICC. As for sending the wrong signal, the first signal that we need to send concerns the need to get a transition from Mugabe’s regime to a democratic regime and to do so not in a way that undermines its people’s capacity to have a country that does not implode but that, with international support, goes from strength to strength in very difficult circumstances.

There are 4 million Zimbabweans in political exile abroad, 295,000 Zimbabweans were displaced during the farm seizures, and a staggering 700,000 were internally displaced during Operation Murambatsvina. Surely one of the key issues is that of protecting the votes of those Zimbabweans in future elections.

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why it is critically important that, working with the international community, any change in regime is to a Government whom we recognise as democratic and accountable to the citizens of Zimbabwe, and where there is a fully fledged Opposition working in the context of free, transparent elections. That is all part of the process. In the coming weeks and months, the first priority must be to ensure that we are able to take forward the momentum of South Africa’s and Tanzania’s engagement to secure a future for the Zimbabwean people that excludes Robert Mugabe.

If there is a total collapse in Zimbabwe, what specific plans does the Minister have for the 12,000 British citizens who live in that country? When will his Government finally take way Mugabe’s honorary knighthood?

The honorary knighthood was given in 1994 by then Prime Minister Major. It is a source of angst and something that we may want to consider at some point. However, it is a third order issue in relation to the issues that we need to resolve. It sounds good, but it is a bolthole, and we must try not to provide Mugabe, or any of his supporters inside or outside the country, with any bolthole, but concentrate our efforts on having a regime that will take on responsibility for the citizens of Zimbabwe in a democratic way.

I cannot make any plainer the contingency planning that we need to do as an international community. This is an evolving situation. However, I gave the House a commitment, and I give it again: I will come back to the House as the situation evolves. In the meantime, I will keep Opposition Front Benchers in constant touch with what I and other Ministers are doing.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The integrity of this House is very important, as I am sure you would agree. I understand that over the weekend there was publicity about a certain report by the Standards and Privileges Committee, which may well be published tomorrow, about the use of banqueting facilities in this House. Is it right that a report that has not yet been made to the House should become public knowledge? I ask you to investigate.

It will surely be taken as a serious matter, but it must in the first place be for the Committee itself to investigate whether its confidentiality has been breached.

I am delighted to open this third day of the Budget debate on the economy and the environment. It provides an opportunity to explore two key themes that will be central to our prosperity in the years ahead: first, the drive to build a low-carbon economy at home; and secondly, the need to maximise our contribution to the development of effective systems for emissions reduction around the world.

The Budget took important steps forward on curbing domestic emissions and contributing to international emissions reduction. It complemented measures in previous Budgets and pre-Budget reports, the Climate Change Bill and European negotiations. It set the stage for further measures in the next few months in the waste strategy, the energy White Paper and international discussions and negotiations, first in the G8 plus 5 in June and subsequently in the United Nations framework.

Vice-President Al Gore said—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) says that he spoke to him yesterday. I congratulate him on his choice of dining partners. The vice-president, who is recognised as an authentic voice on climate change, said that United Kingdom citizens should be proud of their record in contributing to the global fight against climate change. The starting point for the debate is, therefore, the UK’s record so far and international evidence on the science and politics of climate change.

UK greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions trading in 2005, the latest date for which data are available, were nearly 19 per cent. below their 1990 levels. The figure for carbon dioxide is 11 per cent. Since 1997, greenhouse gas emissions, including reductions achieved through the European Union emissions trading scheme, are down by 11 per cent. For carbon dioxide, the reduction—including through the EU ETS—is 4 per cent. Only the countries of central and eastern Europe, the economies of which have undergone a process of restructuring since 1990, match the UK for the scale of emissions reductions.

Our carbon reduction goals have not been fulfilled through economic austerity. In this country, we have enjoyed 58 successive quarters of economic growth. Our inflation, according to the internationally recognised measuring standard, has been the lowest in the G7 countries in the past 10 years. Since 1997, our interest rates have been half the 11 per cent. average of the previous 20 years. Employment is at a record high, and, all the while, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen. In other words, we have given the lie to the old choice of environment versus economy.

The Secretary of State is proud of the Government’s record, but is not a large part of meeting the targets due to the dash for gas? Is not the trend in CO₂ emissions and greenhouse gas emissions as a whole now upwards?

The latest figures for the household sector show that emissions are declining. I am happy to address the question about the dash for gas. It is true that the switch to gas reduced our CO₂ and greenhouse emissions, in the same way that rising gas prices in the past three years have led to an increase in CO₂ emissions.

Anyone listening to the Secretary of State might be misled into believing that the Government were meeting their environmental targets. Can he name a single target, other than the Kyoto target, which is being fulfilled largely because of the dash for gas, that is being met? What about the renewables target, the energy efficiency target, the biofuels target?

What have the Romans done for us other than created a new civilisation? Other than fulfilling the international standard, which is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent., I am happy to provide examples. What about our recycling commitments? When we came to office, this country was rightly perceived as a throwaway society, with 4 or 5 per cent. of waste going into recycling. The figure is now 27 per cent., which beats the target that we set. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has decided to start the debate in a rather churlish spirit because he and I agree that the UK has a good record by international standards, but that it has to do better. It would better become him if he admitted that.

The old choice was between the environment and the economy. The new choice is between low and high carbon development. Reducing emissions powers our economy forward, with 400,000 people working in environmental industries, compared with 170,000 only five years ago. Venture capital is moving into environmental industries, with London’s alternative investment market becoming the market of choice, listing more than 60 clean technology companies with a combined market capitalisation of more than £4 billion.

Meanwhile, Lehman Brothers—[Hon. Members: “It is pronounced “Leeman.”] I say “Leyman”, they say “Leeman”—I think we are talking about the same company. [Interruption.] Since I am British, I pronounce it “Leyman”; since they are American, they pronounce it “Leeman”. However, we are talking about the same company of Lehman Brothers—the distinguished bank, which, I am pleased to say, has many operations in this country. It states that climate change is inexorably becoming one of the major forces that shapes business, and that that presents new opportunities and enables new business to appear and develop. But while we have broken the link between economic growth and carbon growth, we know the country as a whole—Government, businesses and individuals—has to do better. That is the rationale behind the climate change Bill, which I look forward to debating in the House, and also for the measures in the Budget and further measures to come.

I want to ask about aggregates tax. The right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we need to reduce the use of non-sustainable resources, but given that the prime driver is transport costs, is there any evidence to suggest that the aggregates levy has actually reduced the take of virgin stone or increased the use of recycled stone? Will not removing the direct environmental benefit for the local communities affected by quarrying create a pointless levy?

The short answer to whether there is any evidence is yes, but it might be best if I write to the hon. Gentleman to provide the extensive details, some of which, I think I am right in saying, were published in the Red Book last week. They show some of the changes made, but I will happily write with further details.

For the UK, there are four main sources of greenhouse gas emissions: electricity, heat, transport and waste disposal. Each needs to be addressed by a combination of Government, business and individual action. That is what the Government are determined to do. Let me start with electricity and heating supply.

It is remarkable that we can deliver more than 1 million tonnes of carbon reduction from the decision to make the UK the first country in Europe to phase out all high-energy light bulbs. Further significant reductions will come from consumer electronics and from reducing the power consumed in wasteful standby mode. Renewable energy, including wind energy, will cut carbon and a continued nuclear contribution is also important. “Wait and see” is not a sufficient policy in this area, but to drive down energy-related emissions we need to go further in respect of the business sector and households.

The business sector accounts for 40 per cent. of all carbon emissions. I am pleased that large businesses and large emitters are now covered by the European Union emissions trading scheme, covering nearly half of all carbon emissions in this country—and more than half if aviation is included. For medium emitters, we are consulting on an energy performance commitment, but small business needs high-quality advice on energy reduction. That is why the Chancellor announced that the regional development agencies are increasing their expenditure on environmental and energy efficiency initiatives from £140 million to £240 million over the next year. In addition, all firms, whether or not they are in taxable profit, will have access to an enhanced capital allowance for more than 14,000 energy-saving and water-efficient products.

Households constitute 34 per cent. of electricity emissions and changes in building regulations have raised energy efficiency standards by 40 per cent. since 1997, which is worth more than 1.5 million tonnes of carbon every year by 2010. We have reformed the planning rules for wind turbines so that they are no more difficult to install than a satellite dish, and we are committed to help all householders take advantage of cost-effective energy efficiency measures. We also believe that individuals should be able to export electricity more easily to the grid, which is why Ofgem is conducting a special study of how we can better reward people for taking the step of becoming an electricity producer, not just a consumer.

Has the Secretary of State given any consideration to the Trade and Industry Select Committee report and its proposal not to levy council tax increases on households that choose to carry out the sort of actions that he is now praising?

Under the energy efficiency commitment, council tax—or reductions in it—are already being used as incentives for such energy efficiency commitments and I certainly intend to work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I see by my side on the Government Front Bench, to ensure that an appropriate response is made to the Select Committee’s work.

We also know that the fight against global warming needs new technologies such as carbon capture and storage. The principle is simple: instead of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels being released into the atmosphere, it is captured at source and stored safely underground. The results are transformational, with about 85 to 90 per cent. of carbon emissions removed from coal-fired power stations. The requirement is now urgent, which is why we are determined to have a demonstration plant in the UK, why a competition is now being launched by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and why we want to show the world, especially developing countries, that this is not a technology to fear, but one to embrace.

The third main area of transport represents around a quarter of carbon dioxide emissions. The pre-Budget report made commitments in respect of aviation that will save the equivalent of 750,000 tonnes of carbon a year by 2010-11, but surface transport—mainly from cars, vans and lorries—is 93 per cent. of the total.

On aviation, will the Secretary of State confirm that he argued to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that VAT should be introduced on domestic flights and, if so, why does he think he lost the argument?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue. One of the joys of the real world of government, rather than the dream world of opposition, is that collective discussion sorts out the best proposals from the not-so-good proposals. That is why—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will contain themselves, that is why I was delighted that the Chancellor embraced the air passenger duty proposal, which was in the same letter about which the hon. Gentleman is so excited.

Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that he will follow the example of the Leader of the House and join the Chancellor’s campaign team?

I have not yet been asked to join the campaign team, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, who will be concerned about the issue, that, as I have said for three years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an outstanding Prime Minister in waiting, and I believe that he will do outstanding service for the country—[Hon. Members: “As Chancellor or Prime Minister?] As Prime Minister—for some reason, there are some suspicious minds in the House. I am happy to assure Opposition Members that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sitting on this side of the House as Prime Minister for a long time to come.

Surface transport accounts for 93 per cent. of the total, mainly from cars and lorries. It is right that we give incentives to all individuals to choose fuel-efficient ways of motoring. Were every car owner to purchase the most efficient vehicle in their current class of car, average CO₂ emissions across the UK fleet would fall by 30 per cent. The commitments on fuel duty, over the three years, make that choice more likely. We predict that they will save 160,000 tonnes of carbon a year by 2016. Fuel-efficient cars in band B have CO₂ emissions of about half those in band G. We now have a graduated vehicle excise duty system, so that cars in band G will next year face a tax rate of more than 10 times the level for band B.

While it is perfectly laudable to try to reduce inappropriate use of vehicles, such as 4x4s, perhaps in the city, does the Secretary of State recognise that the measure is rather unfair to those of my constituents who are farm labourers, shepherds and uplands farmers, who must use 4x4s for their job? Checking the sheep at 4 am in a Nissan Micra is totally inappropriate. Does he recognise that the proposal is too blunt an instrument?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as delighted as I am that there is a lower poverty rate in rural areas than in urban areas, and that poverty is falling faster in rural areas than in urban areas.

Will the Secretary of State address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace)? The issue is not poverty in rural areas, although we know from the Government’s own advisers that 20 per cent. of rural people live in poverty. The reality is that many thousands of people require powerful engines for their work—towing trailers, four-wheel-drive pick-ups and so on. Of course we need to stop the use of 4x4s—although the issue goes beyond 4x4s—in wholly unnecessary circumstances. But does he accept that it is necessary to devise a new class for those who genuinely need a powerful engine as part of their work, and who might fall foul of the regulations? Will he discuss that with the Chancellor?

The hon. Gentleman speaks on these matters with expertise and commitment, and I take his point seriously. Obviously, we think that the principle of a graduated VED system makes sense. Different people have to make different choices for all sorts of reasons. This is not about forcing Nissan Micras down the throats of farmers, as was suggested earlier. However, if we are to have a graduated system that does not become impossibly complex to administer—for example, many people in rural areas might have a larger car but will not drive it only in that area—there will always be a balance to be struck with simplicity. I am sure that he would not want an over-bureaucratic scheme. If he wants to write to me or the Chancellor, however, or if the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre wants to make a specific proposal, we will consider it seriously. We try to strike a balance between the environmental, economic and social parts of the equation. A simpler system is always an advantage.

Does the Secretary of State accept that VED is still a tax on ownership and not usage? Surely we should have a strategy under which the polluter pays. That should drive our strategy.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for the measures across the board that the Chancellor announced last week. I look forward to him persuading his own Front Benchers to set out their position on fuel duty, which has not been clarified.

We also need to explore the scope for a large-scale shift away from fossil fuel-based transportation. For reasons of environmental and economic security, it is right that we look to a future in which we no longer use petrol to get around.

On that important point, is my right hon. Friend aware that road freight pushes out 12 times as much carbon dioxide as the equivalent rail freight? It would be a tremendous advantage if we could get more freight on to rail. In that respect, will he support the scheme that I proposed, in an Adjournment debate, to build a railway line from Glasgow to the channel tunnel? The railway line would be dedicated to rail freight, link all the industrial areas of Britain and take 5 million lorries off the roads every year.

I believe that there has been a 35 per cent. increase in passenger numbers on the railways and an almost equivalent increase in freight numbers—I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with the details. Tempting as it is for me to do the job of the Secretary of State for Transport, the fairest thing that I can say is that I will look at his scheme. No doubt, my right hon. Friend will also consider it.

Countries such as Brazil decided, about 25 years ago, to shift away from fossil fuel-based surface transport methods. The Chancellor has asked Professor Julia King to work with Sir Nicholas Stern to look into the benefits of taking carbon out of surface transport over the next 25 years by using electric or hydrogen-powered cars. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will shortly announce the terms of reference of that work.

My final point on domestic emissions is that the methane that comes from landfill is 23 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO_2. That is why we have had the landfill tax for the past 11 years, which has helped to achieve a 25 per cent. reduction in the amount of waste that is sent to landfill. However, with the rate of increase at £3 per tonne, the incentives are not yet right for a fundamental shift away from landfill, which is why the tax will rise by £8 per tonne every year from April 2008 until at least 2010-11. That should save greenhouse gas emissions of at least 200,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says from a sedentary position, “No, it won’t”, but I am happy to provide details to show how the landfill tax, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, has worked. I suggest that Conservative Back Benchers take a few lessons from their Front Benchers.

Will the Minister give way?

I am answering this point. The money is recycled, so hon. Members can rest assured on that.

Will the Minister give way?

Two people want to hop in. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) first.

I am glad that that the Secretary of State mentioned landfill tax. What funding will be available to help local authorities to meet their obligations under landfill tax in the coming years?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the comprehensive spending review for details of funding for the years from 2008. He will know that the position until then has been set out in previous Budgets and spending reviews.

I rose to help my right hon. Friend out because it seemed as though we would not get any response from the Opposition. The Staffordshire Environmental Fund is keen that there should be an increase in the landfill tax because of the good work that is being done to aid recycling and environmental schemes as a result of the tax. That is a very welcome outcome of the Budget.

My hon. Friend, who sits on the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, is right. I thought that the landfill tax had cross-party support, so I am surprised by the earlier sedentary comment. We will have to put certain Conservative Back Benchers down as sceptics, if not opponents, but I assure them that the scheme is very good.

I read in the newspapers that some people believe that it was a landmark decision to move away from landfill. Many companies pursue a zero landfill waste policy, which is a good thing.

The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way. Just for the record, the landfill tax was introduced by the Conservative Government. We support it and we support what the Government are trying to do with it, but does he recognise that one of its consequences is increased fly-tipping, responsibility for which should fall within his Department? What initiatives is he taking to ensure that an increase in the landfill tax does not lead to an increase in fly-tipping?

The hon. Gentleman may not have memory on his side, but Labour Members recall his opposition on Second Reading to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, a measure that was designed to tackle precisely that problem. I suggest that he does not tie himself in any further knots.

I welcome the increase in landfill tax because of the likely consequence of a reduction in methane emissions, but can the Secretary of State give us an estimate of the overall impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the measures announced in the Budget? How large a cut will they lead to, in percentage terms?

I do not have the figure to hand, but the hon. Gentleman can tally up the millions of tonnes of carbon represented by the announcements that I have made in my speech, and I shall be happy to send the figure to him later.

rose—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been tallying up, but let us make this the last intervention.

I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but one difficulty with “tallying up” the environmental effect of the Budget is the precise result that the Government intend with their alterations to the climate change levy. The Red Book appears to give no figure for carbon saving from the package. Are the measures in the Budget designed merely to hold the savings level, or are they intended to make any change? If they are not intended to cause a reduction, why not?

The climate change levy has been raised by inflation, and the associated climate change agreements work with it. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s difficulty with calculation in respect of some of the changes. Obviously there is an arithmetical relationship between tax and output, but my experience of talking to businesses suggests to me that the climate change levy and the associated agreements are causing them to take a whole new attitude to the way in which they deal with energy. In other words, the climate change levy—which, as I shall make clear later, has saved about 16 million tonnes of carbon so far—has had a bigger effect than an arithmetical calculation might suggest. To put it more simply, it has resulted in a cultural as well as a fiscal change.

I want to say something about the international part of the agenda. We know that, as well as helping to build a low-carbon economy at home, we must contribute to further emissions reductions abroad. Our commitment to European action is central to our vision of the low-carbon economy of the future.

The European Union can regulate across markets worth 475 million citizens, minimising the competitive disadvantage for any one country. It can bring together a negotiating bloc that is powerful on the world stage. It can create and use carbon markets to drive emissions reductions in Europe—markets that are worth billions of pounds in carbon finance for the developing world.

We are determined that London will be the centre of the European and global carbon market. Thanks to the resolution of the dispute with the European Parliament, we can release common agricultural policy funds to our farmers to help environmental stewardship and rural development across our country. I will make further announcements about that later today.

In raising the European Union, the Secretary of State acknowledges that many decisions on these issues are now made in the Council of Ministers, but this is, in United Kingdom terms, a devolved matter. Can he tell us how many of those Council of Ministers meetings he has attended in the presence of a Scottish Executive Minister?

The short answer to that question is no, but I shall be happy to find out.

Does that mean “no”, or does it mean “none”?