The primary duty of Government, and our abiding obligation, is and will always be the safety of all British people and the protection of the British national interest, so, following approval by the National Security Committee and the Cabinet, the Government are today publishing the first national security strategy. It states that although our obligation to protect the British people and the British national interest is fixed and unwavering, the nature of the threats and the risks that we face has in recent decades changed beyond all recognition and confounds all the old assumptions about national defence and international security. As the strategy makes clear, new threats demand new approaches. A radically updated and much more co-ordinated approach is now required.

For most of the last century, the main threat was unmistakable: a cold war adversary. Today, the potential threats that we face come from far less predictable sources, both state and non-state. Twenty years ago, the terrorist threat to Britain was principally that from the IRA; now it comes from loosely affiliated global networks that threaten us and other nations across continents. Once, when there was instability in faraway regions or countries, we had a choice: to become involved or not. Today no country is, in the old sense, far away, when the consequences of regional instability and terrorism, as well as risks such as climate change, poverty, mass population movements and even organised crime, reverberate quickly round the globe.

To address these great insecurities—war and terrorism, and now climate change, disease and poverty; threats that redefine national security not just as the protection of the state, but as the protection of all people—we need to mobilise all the resources available to us. They include: the hard power of our military, police, security and intelligence services; the persuasive force and reach of diplomacy and cultural connections; the authority of strengthened global institutions, which can deploy both hard and soft power; and, not least because arms and authority will never be enough, the power of ideas and of shared values and hopes that can win over hearts and minds and forge new partnerships for progress and tolerance, involving Government, the private and voluntary sectors, community and faith organisations, and individuals.

The foundation of our approach is to maintain strong, balanced, flexible and deployable armed forces. I want to pay tribute to Britain’s servicemen and women, and those civilians deployed on operations, who every day face danger doing vital work in the service of our country, and in particular to remember today the sacrifices made for our country by all who have been injured or who have lost their lives in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of war.

To raise recruitment and to improve retention in our armed forces, we will match our new public information recruitment campaign, launched this week, with the Government’s first ever cross-departmental strategy for supporting our service personnel, their families and veterans. This will be published shortly.

In the past two years we have raised general pay levels and introduced the first tax-free bonus of nearly £400 a month for those on operations, as well as a council tax refund, and today the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing new retention incentives for our armed forces. There will be increased commitment bonuses of up to £15,000 for longer-serving personnel, and, starting with a new £20 million home purchase fund, we will respond to the demand for more affordable home ownership for servicemen and women.

I can also inform the House that, to meet the threats ahead, after a trebling of its budget since 2001, the Security Service will rise in number to 4,000, which is twice the level of 2001. I can also inform the House that we will be increasing yet again, this time by 10 per cent., the resources for the joint terrorism analysis centre, which brings together 16 departments including the police and intelligence agencies, and giving it a new focus on the longer-term challenge of investigating the path to violent extremism.

I can also confirm that, to meet future security needs, we have set aside funds to modernise our interception capability; that at GCHQ and in the Secret Intelligence Service, we are developing new technical capabilities to root out terrorism; and that the new Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which we set up last year, will provide a higher level of protection against internet-based threats.

The strategy published today will be backed up by a new approach to engage and inform the public. Two years ago, we removed from being classified as secret the information on threat levels for the UK. We will now go much further. Starting later this year, we will openly publish for the first time a national register of risks—information that was previously held confidentially within Government—so that the British public can see at first hand the challenges that we face and the levels of threat that we have assessed.

To harness a much wider range of expertise and experience from outside Government, and to help us plan for the future, we are inviting business, academics, community organisations and military and security experts from outside Government to join a new national security forum that will advise the recently constituted National Security Committee. Having accepted the recommendation of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I thank it for its work—to separate the position of Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from policy adviser to the Government, and having appointed Mr. Alex Allan as Chair of the JIC, I can confirm that, as proposed by the Butler review, his responsibility will be solely to provide Ministers with security assessments formulated independently of the political process.

We will also immediately go ahead to introduce a resolution of both Houses—in advance of any future legislation—that will enshrine an enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. This will lead to more parliamentary debate on security matters, to public hearings on the national security strategy, and—as promised—to greater transparency over appointments to the Committee, so that the Committee can not only review intelligence and security but perform a public role more akin to the practice of Select Committees generally in reporting to and informing the country on security matters.

Emerging from all the experience and lessons learned of the last decade is the clear conclusion that we are strongest when we combine the resources of our military, police and security and intelligence services with effective diplomacy, and when we work closely with international partners to confront the new global challenges and bring about change. This approach emphasises the importance of strengthening our key diplomatic and military alliances: with the United States, our strongest bilateral partner; with NATO as the cornerstone of our security; with our central role at the heart of an outward-facing European Union; and with our long-lasting and deep commitment to the Commonwealth and to working through international institutions.

I can tell the House that Britain will be at the forefront of diplomatic action on nuclear weapons control and reduction, offering a new bargain to non-nuclear powers. On the one hand, we will help them, and we have proposed the creation of a new international system to help non-nuclear states to acquire the new sources of energy that they need, including through our proposed global enrichment bond, and we are today inviting interested countries to an international conference on these important themes later this year.

In return, we will seek agreement on tougher controls aimed at reducing weapons and preventing proliferation—first, by ending the stalemates on the fissile material cut-off treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and, secondly, by achieving, after 2010, a more robust implementation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the aim of accelerating disarmament among possessor states, preventing proliferation and, ultimately, freeing the world from nuclear weapons. And, as a new priority to meet the dangers both of proliferation to new states and of material falling into the hands of terrorists, we propose not only tougher action against potential proliferators such as Iran but new action against suppliers. We are seeking to strengthen export control regimes and build a more effective forensic nuclear capability in order to determine and expose the true source of material employed in any nuclear device. Having already reduced the number of our operationally available warheads by 20 per cent. and made our expertise available for the verifiable elimination of warheads, I can confirm that we, Britain, are ready to play our part in further disarmament.

As great a potential threat and as demanding of a co-ordinated international response is, of course, the risk from failing and unstable states. Again, the national security strategy published today proposes a new departure—and, again, it is a lesson learned from recent conflicts ranging from Rwanda and Bosnia to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. It proposes to create a stand-by international civilian capability so that for fragile and failing states, we can act quickly and comprehensively by combining the humanitarian, peacekeeping, stabilisation and reconstruction support that those countries need. In the same way as we have military forces ready to respond to conflict, we must have civilian experts and professionals ready to deploy quickly to assist failing states and to help rebuild countries emerging from conflict, putting them on the road to economic and political recovery.

I can tell the House that Britain will start by making available a 1,000-strong UK civilian stand-by capacity that will include police, emergency service professionals, judges and trainers. I am calling on EU and NATO partners to set high and ambitious targets for their contributions to such a force.

Between now and 2011, Britain is offering £600 million for conflict prevention, conflict resolution and stabilisation work around the world, including work in Israel and Palestine, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenya and the Balkans. As we assume our presidency of the UN Security Council in May, we are proposing an appeal by the UN Secretary-General for a co-ordinated crisis recovery fund to provide immediate support where reconstruction is needed, to which Britain will be prepared to contribute.

Specifically, because we know the importance of peace in Darfur, I am announcing today more help from Britain to train, equip and employ African troops for the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping operation. Given the importance of safeguarding peace in Somalia, I can announce that Britain will help to pay for 850 Burundian troops as part of the African Union peacekeeping force there. Given the critical importance of economic and political reconstruction complementing military action as the elected Afghan Government face down the Taliban, we are proposing an integrated civilian-military headquarters—headed by a civilian—that will now be constituted in Helmand. And in Iraq, where we have already brought electricity and water supplies to more than 1 million citizens, we are stepping up our contribution to the work of long-term economic reconstruction by supporting the Basra development commission, led for the British by the businessman Michael Wareing who is doing an excellent job.

In order to maximise our contribution to all the new challenges of peacekeeping, humanitarian work and stabilisation and reconstruction, the Secretary of State for Defence is also announcing this afternoon that, as part of a wider review, the Government will now examine how our reserve forces can more effectively help with stabilisation and reconstruction in post-conflict zones around the world. With this year being the 100th anniversary of the Territorial Army, I want to pay tribute to the servicemen and women in our reserves, who provide such an essential element of our nation’s defence.

Mr. Speaker, the security strategy published today also makes it clear that, as well as being able to respond to crises as they develop, we need to be able to tackle the underlying drivers of conflict and instability. Those include poverty, inequality and poor governance, where by focusing on areas where poverty breeds conflict, we have quadrupled Britain’s aid budget and we are pushing for bold international action to meet the millennium development goals.

The second set of underlying drivers is climate change and competition for natural resources, where we are leading the way in arguing for a post-2012 international agreement and for a new global fund to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change, including in the areas most under stress and therefore most likely to suffer instability as well as humanitarian disasters.

The third drivers are disease and global pandemics, where, with the World Health Organisation, the priority is to improve early warning systems, to increase global vaccine supplies and to help put in place a more co-ordinated global response. Given the importance of building stability and countering violent extremism in the middle east and south Asia, we are also increasing the number of Foreign Office staff there by 30 per cent.

Among all the security challenges to citizens of this country covered by the new strategy, the most serious and urgent remains the threat from international terrorism. As the head of MI5 has said, Britain is facing 30 known plots and is monitoring 200 networks and about 2,000 individuals. There have been 58 convictions for terrorism in just over a year and the Home Secretary is announcing today that we will have four regional counter-terrorism units and four regional intelligence units, significantly increasing anti-terrorism police capability in the regions. Since the events of 11 September, on suspicion of being a threat to national security or fostering extremism, 300 individuals have been prevented from entering the country. Now—backing up the unified border agency, compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals and our proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that would allow us in unique circumstances to extend detention to ensure full investigation of terror threats—the Government will match stronger action against those whom we suspect of stirring up tensions with collaborative work with our European partners to strengthen the EU rules on deporting criminals—a matter that I shall discuss with President Sarkozy when he visits Britain next week.

For action against terrorism and against organised crime, it is important to strengthen Europol and Eurojust, to ensure the rapid and secure exchange of information across borders, and to speed up the extradition of criminals and the confiscation of their assets. Starting with the United Arab Emirates, we are signing more agreements so that once the assets of a convicted criminal are seized in one country, with the assistance of the other, both countries will get a share of the proceeds.

Our new approach to security also means local resilience against emergencies: building and strengthening local capacity to respond effectively to a range of circumstances from floods to potential terrorism incidents. That means not the old cold-war idea of civil defence, but a new form of civil protection that combines expert preparedness at local level for potential emergencies with a greater local engagement of individuals and families themselves. Next month the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will report on additional measures that we propose for young people in colleges and universities, in prisons and working in faith communities to disrupt the promoters of violent extremism, all building on the support of the vast majority of people of all faiths and all backgrounds who condemn terrorism, terrorists and their actions.

The national security strategy shows a Britain resolute in the face of an unstable and increasingly uncertain international security landscape. It demonstrates the lessons that we and other countries have learnt in recent years: that we must expand our policing, security and intelligence capacity—and we are doing so; that we must do more to prevent conflict by, for instance, more effective international control of arms—and we are doing so; and that we must strengthen the effectiveness of international institutions to promote stability and reconstruction, for which we have presented proposals today.

We will always be vigilant, will never leave ourselves vulnerable, and will support and at all times and wherever necessary strengthen—as we do today—our defence and civilian support for national security.

I commend my statement to the House.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me first put on record the huge debt of gratitude that we owe the police, the security services and our armed forces for the work that they do to keep our country safe.

The Prime Minister made a very wide-ranging statement, and there was much in it that we support. We welcome the idea, which we have long supported, of a stand-by civilian capacity so that we can act quickly in fragile or failing states. We also support the idea of a cross-cutting manifesto for forces’ families. I set it out in my party conference speech two years ago, and I am glad that it is bearing fruit. We strongly back what the Prime Minister said about greater co-ordination of our effort in Helmand province. Anyone who has been there knows that that really is needed.

However, I want to focus my questions on the theory and practice of a national security approach. The statement has been a long time coming, and at first sight it looks—and sounded from the Prime Minister—rather more like a list than a strategy. It would help if instead of announcing a series of things that the Secretary of State for Defence or the Home Secretary is to announce, the Prime Minister simply told us more clearly what will change and why the position will be different. Owing to the tenor of his approach, that did not come across at all clearly. That may be because the strategy has had a very difficult birth. According to sources inside Downing street,

“it… has proved a bit of a disaster… Its genesis has been marked by delays, indecisiveness at the top, a total lack of funds”—

[Interruption.] I am reading because it is a very long quotation. The hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) has been warned before. He is slowly getting closer to the door—he used to sit behind the Prime Minister—and, as I said yesterday, apparently the door is what he will be going through. The quotation continues

“and some glorious Whitehall squabbling.”

We will study the strategy in detail, but the idea of a national security strategy—

Shocking!

Shocking? It is shocking when people interrupt all the time when I am trying to reply to the statement.

The idea of a national security strategy is one that we welcome. The need for a national security approach is clear: the threats to our national security, from terrorism to climate change and energy security, have proliferated, and the Government must adapt to deal with them. That is why, in 2006, my party said that it was time not just for a national security strategy but for a national security council. Does the Prime Minister agree that a national security strategy will work only if it is put in place and carried out properly? To achieve that, three things must happen. First, institutions in the UK need to be properly organised to deliver a national security approach. Secondly, we need to understand fully the connections between foreign and domestic policy, and how they impact on our security. Thirdly, and vitally, any strategy will make sense only if the Government follow through and take all the necessary practical steps.

Let me take each of those in turn. Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government have decided to set up a national security forum—another talking shop—instead of a proper national security council? Surely, a proper national security council would have dedicated staff—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Prime Minister will sit and wait, then he can answer the questions at the end. A proper national security council would have dedicated staff and decision-making powers. It would be at the heart of Government, with all the relevant Ministers, and it would be chaired by the Prime Minister. We do not have that; we should have it. Can he explain how a forum and an existing Cabinet committee can drive the implementation of a national security strategy across all Departments? Are we not in danger of having a talking shop and confusion?

On the connection between foreign and domestic policy, is there going to be a properly joined-up approach? The Prime Minister talked about a single security budget, but will it genuinely cover all the areas? For instance—and I have asked him about this before—will the single security budget include special branch, which is currently funded by separate forces? The United Kingdom must retain the power, properly funded, to intervene abroad militarily when necessary, as the strategy says, but we must understand that military operations abroad have consequences for security at home. As the Joint Intelligence Committee warned, our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we supported, increase in the short term the threat of terrorism domestically in the UK, yet we have to ask whether all the necessary action was taken domestically at the time. It is clear that the answer is no.

That leads to the third issue—the importance of following through on the national security strategy. The Prime Minister has a number of questions to answer. First, why, despite Government statements to the contrary, has he still not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is clearly a gateway group that seeks to poison young minds against our country and way of life? [Interruption.] He says, “My goodness”, but the previous Prime Minister said that he would ban it, so why has it not happened? Why, despite rightly preventing the preacher of hate, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, from entering Britain following our recommendation to do so, has he not followed the lead of the Irish Government and excluded Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for the terrorist organisation, Hezbollah, who recently conducted a speaking tour of the UK? Why has his Government allowed public money to end up in the hands of extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood? Does he understand the damage done to our reputation by the perception that the UK has allowed itself to become a terrorist breeding ground and a threat to others? Why, despite the urgent need to secure our borders, does he still refuse to create a proper border police force with enforcement powers? What is holding him back from those obvious and necessary measures?

May I end by asking the Prime Minister to begin his response by answering the following question? A national security approach will not succeed unless we learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past. In the statement, he talked about learning the lessons from conflicts such as Rwanda and Iraq. With that in mind, does he not think it is time to establish the promised inquiry into the conduct of the Iraq war? To say that that cannot be done while our forces are still in Basra is effectively to kick this into the very long grass, and it flies in the face of the fact that the United States, for instance, has held such inquiries. When he stands at the Dispatch Box, will he answer that question and tell us when we will have that inquiry, which, if we are to make a national security strategy work, is clearly needed.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the standby facility and for the co-ordination of our efforts in Helmand. I am grateful, too, for his support for our armed forces and security services generally. I am afraid, however, that only he can trivialise a national security statement. If he had done his research, he would know that there is a National Security Committee, which includes the Chief of the Defence Staff, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of all the intelligence agencies—MI5, MI6 and GCHQ—the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who attend the meetings. The terms of reference are to consider issues relating to national security and the Government’s international and European policies, as well as their international development policies. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking for we have already. It is chaired by the Prime Minister, and it met only last week. It meets regularly to look at the relationship between domestic and international issues, and it has been in existence for several months, apparently without his knowing about it.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of an inquiry on Iraq and asked what lessons we have learned. I made it very clear in my statement that we are expanding our policing, security and intelligence capability. We want to do more on the early prevention of conflicts by more effective international control of arms. We want to strengthen the international institutions to promote stability and reconstruction, and, of course, our forces, including the security forces, are always vigilant. As for an inquiry, four inquiries have reported to the House on conditions related to the action in Iraq. It would not be a good use of Ministry of Defence resources to have to reply to an inquiry, when we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be right, when we have troops in danger and at risk, particularly in Iraq, for the country to turn its attention to an inquiry instead of doing everything we can to protect them. We will therefore be consistent in our judgment, even if his party is not consistent on this matter, that the right time to look at these issues and review the lessons learned is when our troops have finished the work in Iraq, which they are conducting with great efficiency. They deserve our full support, the wholehearted attention of the Ministry of Defence and the support of all the institutions of government.

I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman about the thesis behind the work that we are doing. As I said at the beginning of the statement, there is growing recognition that we cannot distinguish between issues that are somehow “over there”, as if they have no effect on our country, whether they concern the environment, terrorism or national disasters, and what happens in our own country. It is a fact, as we found with 11 September, that the richest citizen in the richest city in the richest country can be directly affected by what is happening to the poorest citizens in the poorest countries in other parts of the world. Our security strategy must reflect that, which is why we are looking at what we can do internationally on the control of weapons and to rebuild international institutions. That is why, too, we are looking at what we can do domestically do improve our resilience.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people who have come into the country. Three hundred potential terrorists or people suspected of extremism have been refused admission into the UK in recent years, so we are alert in taking action against those who pose a danger. As he knows, the decision was made to refuse Mr. al-Qaradawi a visa—he has not applied for entry into the UK—for this country. Mr. Moussawi came to the UK in December and again on 28 February. On both occasions, his visit passed without incident. In all those cases, however, we keep matters under review. In relation to Hizb ut-Tahrir, I have said that we will be vigilant in examining its activities. Our consistent advice is not to give that organisation the oxygen of publicity by banning it. We wish, however, to keep it under review. We will always take the action that is necessary, but we will look at it case by case, and everyone with a sensible voice on these matters in the House would propose that we do so.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. Before dealing it, may I say that we have witnessed some breathtaking political opportunism, because the leader of the Conservative party pressed for an inquiry into a war that he and all his colleagues signed up to support lock, stock and barrel, with no questions asked? Perhaps we need an inquiry into how his party has flip-flopped on Iraq.

I agree that an overarching view of the different threats to our nation’s security is necessary. However, I hope that the Prime Minister agrees that the document that he has put before the House is the beginning, rather than the end, of the process. What we have heard today is an assessment of what the threats are, but not quite yet a strategic overview of how all those threats will be tackled. I hope that more time will be made available to the House to examine the document in greater detail.

Does the Prime Minister agree that many of the threats he has enumerated—terrorism, climate change, cross-border crime—cannot be dealt with by the United Kingdom on its own, and, indispensably, we can deal with them only as full and committed members of the European Union? I noted that in his statement he referred to the EU only third after the United States and NATO as a crucial forum in which many of the collective security threats will be tackled. Does that attach enough significance to the extent to which our membership of the EU affords us a certain safety in numbers?

The Prime Minister has in the past talked about drawing red lines in Brussels. I wonder whether the time has now come for him also to draw red lines in our relationship with Washington. Why, for instance, has he entered into a secret deal with the United States Administration to base George Bush’s “son of star wars” missile defence system on British soil? Does he seriously think that that enhances our national security?

The Prime Minister spoke about the need to have strengthened global institutions. I agree with that. We all agree that we need a rules-based multilateral system to safeguard all our security. Does he, however, think it is compatible with that view of the value of a strong, multilateral, rules-based system that he has been completely silent—so far at least—on President Bush’s veto of the proposed ban on the use of torture by American military personnel around the world?

I hope the Prime Minister will also agree that security and liberty are two sides of the same coin. We should never be forced to accept that there should be a trade-off of one in favour of another—that our security can be promoted only by a sacrifice of our liberty. For that to be the case, does he also agree that any measures that infringe on our liberty in the name of security must be based on overwhelming, compelling evidence that they are necessary, and does he truly think that the Government have yet marshalled that overwhelming, compelling evidence in favour of their proposal to extend further the period of detention without charge?

The Prime Minister spoke of a wider review being undertaken by the Secretary of State for Defence. We all know that our armed forces are overstretched, overcommitted and under-resourced. Does the Prime Minister agree that as it has been 10 years since there was a full strategic defence review, it is high time that he announced a new full strategic review of our defence capabilities for today and the years ahead?

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that we are spending more on defence every year, and we are making equipment available to our armed forces that was not available in the past. The Chief of the Defence Staff said only a few days ago that the forces were now better equipped than at any time for 40 years. That is because we have not only increased the budget for defence, but we have made available what are called urgent operational requirements to the Ministry of Defence, as a result of which £3.3 billion has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past two years—exactly the money the right hon. Gentleman was opposing only a few minutes ago when he raised another question in this House.

I have to correct the right hon. Gentleman on one or two issues. The ballistic missile defence system is for the Czech Republic and Poland, not the United Kingdom. The European Union does not have an official role in foreign and security policy; it is an intergovernmental organisation, in part for dealing with defence and security policy. He should understand that that is how the European countries interact for the preservation of security, and that that is why NATO is so important—and also why the Bucharest summit in the next few days is so important.

I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman supports what we have done for the armed forces, with up to £15,000 for retention so we can retain more of our highly qualified people in our armed forces for longer. That announcement of today will raise the number of people in the establishment—in the Army, Navy and Air Force—to a higher level than before.

As for the issue of torture, the right hon. Gentleman will know of our record of opposing torture in every part of the world. As for what he says about the powers of detention, he—and even the Conservative party—has supported the Liberty proposals that say there may be circumstances in which more than 28 days is necessary for arresting and interviewing someone before charge. I believe he should look seriously at the similarities between the original Liberty proposals and those we are putting forward. We are not saying that in every circumstance someone who is detained must be detained for up to 42 days; we are saying that there should be a reserve power and that if the Home Secretary, with others, decides it should be used, she would come to the House of Commons and ask for that power to be activated. That is very similar to the power proposed by Liberty that the right hon. Gentleman supported because he recognised that there may be circumstances in which it might be necessary to go beyond 28 days. That is not what is at dispute, even though he wants to think that is the issue. The issue is the mechanism that we use. I hope the Liberal party will rethink what I believe is an incredible position on this issue.

I warmly welcome the publication of this first national security strategy and its rich content, not least its drawing together of issues such as climate change and nuclear non-proliferation, which tend to be dealt with separately in public debate, but which are obviously part of a continuum in public policy making. I also very much welcome what the Prime Minister said about both the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee and greater resources for the agencies it monitors. Will he confirm that he recognises—as, I believe, does the Committee—the importance of maintaining the delicate balance between a welcome greater openness to Parliament and the public, and maintaining the operational effectiveness of those agencies on which our security so much depends?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments. She pushed for non-proliferation when she was Foreign Secretary and made very important disarmament proposals, and we have drawn on the work she has done in today’s national security strategy document. I also appreciate the work she is now doing as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will go ahead with our proposals, with a resolution to the House, for more parliamentary debate on security matters, and I believe all Members will welcome the fact that there will be wider debate on these issues. The national security strategy can be subject to hearings in public before the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I believe that there is agreement among Committee members that that would be a good thing to do. There will also be greater transparency over appointments to the Committee. I believe that these three measures will give the Committee an enhanced role in explaining to the public some of the difficult and complex issues of national security, but we will do nothing to put at risk what my right hon. Friend rightly says is the delicate and balanced relationship between the need to inform the public and the need to retain the support and confidence of security agencies, which do so much for the good of the country but which have to be protected in the work they do for reasons all Members regard as obvious. I believe that our proposals get the balance right.

The Prime Minister rightly paid tribute to the magnificent work that the Territorial Army is undertaking in overseas war zones. Will he and the Defence Secretary look to give an enhanced domestic role to the TA in dealing with security incidents at home, should they happen? If there is a major terrorism incident in this country, the regular Army and our security services will be hard-pressed. There could be an ideal role for the Territorial Army both in contributing to the security containment zone that will have to be set up, and in terms of the specialist units and dealing with the clean-up and the aftermath. The Territorial Army used to have a domestic role when some of our battalions were committed to NATO. This could be an ideal future role for it.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I am grateful that there is a bipartisan approach. The review of the Territorials—it is 100 years since they were created, and it is appropriate that we have this review now—will look at exactly the issue he raises: their domestic as well as their international role. He rightly says that volunteers and the Territorial Army have played a great role in civil emergencies in recent years; we want to look at that as part of the review, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to contribute to it.

I, too, warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, with its emphasis on co-ordination and benchmarking. On parliamentary accountability, the last time the Select Committee on Home Affairs took evidence from the head of MI5 we travelled in a car that had darkened windows, we entered the building through the garage and we had a private session. Even though the information he gave us was excellent, we could not quote from it in our report. Will other Committees be able to take evidence from the head of MI5 in public, where it better informs us of decisions, so that we can report back to Parliament?

My right hon. Friend rightly points to the co-operation and briefings that he has received as part of the Home Affairs Committee’s work from the head of MI5. We should return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett). It is important to get the balance right between the desire to show to the public as much as possible of the work that we are doing in the most open and transparent way and the need to protect our security services in the work that we do. We will continue to get that balance right.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there are things to welcome in this statement—to call it a strategy would be to over-egg the pudding—as so often with the Prime Minister, the rhetoric collides with the reality? We no longer have strong, balanced and flexible armed forces—they are grossly overstretched and underfunded, and we cannot go on paying retention bonuses for anything other than a sticking plaster operation. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is right to call for a defence review so that some necessary major procurement decisions may be taken for the future. We cannot run a procurement policy on urgent operational requirements. We must be able to take the decisions about the carriers and about Trident, areas that all need examining again.

We have already made our decisions about Trident and have set aside the money for that to happen. We have set aside money for aircraft carriers as well. We have the biggest equipment budget in history and, at the same time, we are spending more current money on our defence forces every year. That is why we have the second largest defence budget in the world. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that our defence forces are not strong—they are strong and we are proud of them for being strong, and they are flexible and we are proud of them for being flexible. I know that he is a prolific reader, but I doubt whether he has read the full national security strategy in the past few minutes. I hope that on reflection, once he has read it, he will be able to praise the work that we have done and contribute to the debate on it for the future. We will annually update the national security strategy, and obviously we welcome any comments from him.

I very strongly welcome the parts in my right hon. Friend’s statement about nuclear weapons, not least because the terrorists’ capacity to obtain them is a serious one. In the same vein, does he recognise that biological and chemical weapons possibly pose an even bigger threat? It is probably easier for terrorists to obtain access to those weapons because of the nature of them. Will he give the same urgency to dealing with chemical and biological weapons—the so-called “poor man’s nuclear weapons”?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a huge interest in these matters having been a Minister at the Foreign Office. He rightly says that although I emphasised in my statement the measures that we wish to take to promote nuclear disarmament, references are also made in the national security strategy document to the dangers and risks posed by chemical and biological weapons. He is right to say that the dangers of those weapons falling into the hands of potential terrorists mean that we have to examine not only the owners of those weapons but who is supplying them. We now have excellent ability to do post-fact detection of who the supplier is, which should enable us to locate the suppliers of chemical, biological and nuclear weapon parts and take strong action against them. That is an important part of the national security strategy that we have published.

What role does the Prime Minister foresee for Her Majesty’s Coastguard in national security?

I was in Darfur a few weeks ago, where I was briefed by some African Union’s senior military figures. They told me that a no-fly zone and a dozen attack helicopters were urgently necessary. Both of those points were raised 12 months ago, but people are still dying who would not be dying if those things were put in place.

Finally, the Prime Minister refers to a more robust implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. Is the renewal of Trident not a breach of that treaty anyway?

No is the answer to the third question.

I praise the work of Her Majesty’s coastguards—indeed, I visited many of them some weeks ago to thank them for the work they do both on rescue and on the security of the country.

As for Darfur, I agree with the hon. Gentleman: this is a human tragedy that is being acted out, involving a threat to the lives of young children as well as to those of adults. He rightly says that we should consider a no-fly zone. The problem with such a zone, as I have said before in this House, is that we are dealing with an area the size of France—a massive geographical area. Therefore, the aircraft requirement to be able to police a no-fly zone is way beyond what countries are prepared—or able at this time, because of other action in Afghanistan and elsewhere—to supply. That is the problem in respect of a no-fly zone at the moment. People must be realistic enough to recognise that it is difficult enough to get the supply of helicopters that he is talking about, so staffing and policing a no-fly zone is very difficult, even when aerial bombings, which are completely unacceptable, are taking place.

As I said last week in the House, the way forward in Darfur is to get the peace negotiations started again, to get both sides—not only the Government, but the rebel groups that never came to the original proposals for the peace talks only a few weeks ago—to the talks and to get the African Union and United Nations force in to back up whatever settlement can be agreed. Those are the priorities, and I hope that we can move forward on them with speed.

The Prime Minister mentioned the new civilian capability. Can he tell me whether he intends UK industry to participate in that organisation so that it, too, can play its part?

We have an industrial strategy for the defence industries that was published a few months ago. It will be regularly updated, it is the source of a great deal of consultation with the defence manufacturers and it is a very important part of building confidence in this country’s defence manufacturing industries. We will continue this collaboration, which has been of great use to us in the past and has been intensified in recent years.

Although I welcome the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on the Territorial Army and reserves, may I urge him to look across the Atlantic at the model of the National Guard, which, besides making a remarkable contribution in dealing with both Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath of 9/11, also provides highly effective combat brigades and fast jet fighter squadrons for use in Iraq? May I suggest that the basic lesson that we can learn from America is that an organisation is most successful—the National Guard is the only part of the American armed forces that is fully recruited—when it is led at all levels by volunteer reserves, when it has a real footprint in every part of the country and, above all, when it is used as a force in its own right, be that for combat, peacekeeping, disaster relief and so on, and not merely as a provision of spare parts for the regular counterparts?

The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the Territorial Army and I understand his deep interest in these matters. I believe that the proposals that he puts forward and his desire that we look at what is successful in other countries, including the United States of America, are things that we can draw on during this review. I hope that he will contribute his thoughts to the Defence Secretary as he moves forward with the review.

I particularly welcome the support that the Prime Minister will be giving to our armed forces and the £20 million homes investment plan, although more may be needed in respect of social housing. On climate change, it is essential that we develop a strategy for sustainable global security. Will he have talks with the Oxford Research Group in delivering the new role that climate change will play at the heart of our global strategy?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of taking action on climate change. That is why not only are we making proposals for international action to secure a post-2012 agreement, but we are proposing that the World Bank should take on a new role as a world bank for the environment, as well as for development, so that it can provide money for energy-efficiency schemes and for alternative sources of energy to be invested in by some of the poorer countries in the world. International co-operation is vital to deal with the problems of climate change. She probably knows that we are sponsoring a major afforestation project in the Congo basin. It is one of many projects that we are prepared to support with the environmental transformation fund.

My hon. Friend also raises the issue of armed forces’ accommodation. In total, £5 billion has been allocated for improvements in accommodation over many years, but is important that we make a start as quickly as possible with some of the schemes that can give the greatest results. That is why the £20 million set aside for these armed forces equity sharing and home ownership pilots is important to send a message to members of the armed forces that as they prepare to move to new careers later, we will help them to buy their first home.

Could the Prime Minister give some indication of the implications of this statement for the Department for International Development, which plays a key role in fragile and failing states and in conflict prevention, resolution and stabilisation? Does he agree that it may be an appropriate time to review the fairly severe staffing constraints on that Department, if it is to be able to provide civilian support and co-ordination, as well as poverty reduction?

Can the Prime Minister also give me an indication of the proposal for Helmand for an integrated civilian-military headquarters headed by a civilian? How will that relate to the provincial reconstruction team that is already established? Is it a replacement for that or something that will have to co-ordinate with it? Is he able to give a clearer steer on how that will operate?

They will work together. The right hon. Gentleman may know that we are determined to move as quickly as possible to appoint a development co-ordinator in Afghanistan, as that is urgently needed. As he will know, Lord Ashdown would have been a great appointment to that job, but that was not possible. Now we have a proposal for a regional appointment and I hope that that will make quick progress.

On aid, I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The budget of DFID, and Britain’s aid budget generally, has quadrupled from £2.1 billion to nearly £9 billion by 2011, so there is additional money available for the priorities of the Department. He is right to say that in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as in Africa and in Israel, and in dealing with the Palestinian authorities—we will need DFID. If we are to combine humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, stabilisation and reconstruction, it has a key role to play.

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to climate change. Will he support my proposals for a world environment court and review the work of the working group chaired by Stephen Hockman QC to ensure that the Kyoto targets and the post-Kyoto targets are enforceable?

I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this matter and the effort he makes in his constituency to persuade young people, especially schoolchildren, to take an interest in the environment. His proposal for the world environment court is an interesting one. We have to get to the first stage first, and that is persuading all countries to accept binding targets. That will be our priority in the post-2012 negotiations, and we will ally to that our proposal that funding be made available to developing countries to persuade them that it is in their interests to sign up to those agreements. How we make those agreements binding is a matter for the discussions, and obviously his proposal is one that will be taken into account.

I note with interest the Prime Minister’s comments about recruitment and retention, and about supporting servicemen’s families. Part of that package is facing up to things that go wrong, and the coroner’s inquest is where many of those things are brought to light, as happened in the case of Captain James Philippson, who was sadly let down by a lack of equipment. Will the Prime Minister request the Secretary of State for Defence to row back in trying to gag our coroners and dilute their comments? Will the Prime Minister also ask that the Minister for the Armed Forces retract the comments that appeared to cast a slur on Captain James Philippson’s comrade-in-arms, Major Bristow?

I hope the hon. Lady will acknowledge that we have made more money available to make it possible for coroners’ inquests to move more quickly. We understand the grief that is experienced by relatives, the desire for closure and the problems that arise if inquests are delayed or are slow in happening. However, I do not agree with her interpretation of the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence. It is important that the coroner’s inquest does the work it is intended to do by statute.

My right hon. Friend will know that today the security agencies are watching more than 2,000 people whom they believe have serious terrorist intent. Those people will have multiple identities and their behaviour is little known to us. It is therefore important for the House to hear the argument for pre-charge detention clearly and carefully put so that we can be confident in supporting it, because it is definitely needed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the balance between the needs of liberty and security is an important issue. It is also important to recognise that our constitution is founded on the liberty of the individual, but all parties now seem to have accepted that there may be occasions when it is necessary to go beyond 28 days for the pre-charge interviews, if that is necessary for a proper charge to be laid. That is what the debate is about. All parties agree that there may be circumstances in which that might have to happen. The question is whether we can agree on the mechanics of it, and that is what the debate will be about.

I join others in paying tribute to the fantastic job done by our servicemen and women, and the police services, in keeping our country safe both at home and abroad. I welcome many elements of this comprehensive statement today, in particular the help given to service personnel and their families, although I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that more could and should be done on that front.

On the specific issue of the national security forum, the Prime Minister referred to the threat posed to this country’s security by the IRA over many years. Indeed, the threat continues in relation to dissident groups in Northern Ireland. He talks of drawing on experience from outside government. Would he undertake to consider the experience and expertise available in Northern Ireland, which—tragically—have been built up over many years? I am sure that they would be made available to assist in protecting the country from the current more diverse but very challenging threat to its security.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have to draw on the expertise that is available from all parts of the United Kingdom. I assure him that what he says will be taken into account in formulating the membership of the national security forum, but also in learning the lessons from the actions that had to be taken against terrorism in Northern Ireland.

rose—

Order. We must move on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the Prime Minister has misled this House, both about the position of my party but more importantly—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that. He must withdraw that remark.

On your advice, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that point, but it is clear—

The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the remark without qualification. My ruling is that that is not a point of order. Are there any other points of order?

rose—

It had better not be on the same issue, because the hon. Gentleman has just made a mess of it. Points of order are not about extending the statement that we have just heard.

Please hear what I have to say.

I will hear what he has to say, but I warn him that I will stop him if it is not a point of order.

This morning on the “Today” programme, a Minister made exactly the same point as the Prime Minister just made and was subsequently corrected by Liberty about its position. Liberty does not have the ability to correct the matter in the House—

Order. If there is one thing that I am not responsible for, it is the organisation Liberty. It can speak for itself.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose restrictions on the types of decisions that local authorities can take during specified periods prior to local elections; and for connected purposes.

I hope not to take up the full 10 minutes, because I know that we are coming to an important debate on post office closures to which many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute. Many Ministers have also been working hard in their constituencies and no doubt they, too, will want to get their views on the record.

The objective of the Bill is to bring local councils in line with Parliament and to prevent any major decisions from being taken during the period of a local election campaign. For Parliament, there is Cabinet Office guidance for what is known as the pre-election period about the types of decisions that can be made. It states:

“During an election campaign, the Government retains its responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge of their Departments. Essential business must be carried on.

However, it is customary for Ministers to observe discretion in initiating any NEW action of a continuing or long term character.

Decisions on matters of policy on which a new Government might be expected to want an opportunity to take a different view from the present Government should be postponed until AFTER the Election.”

So it is official that no major decisions can be made during the four weeks of an election campaign but, following the Prime Minister’s recent performance, I am led to believe that he might not be aware that it is just those four weeks. He seems to be doing it all the time.

No such rule applies to local authorities. It could be argued that we do not need such a policy, because we know when the election date will be and if we are all fair about it councils can ensure that no ambiguous, controversial or large financial decisions are made during that election period. Guess which party in local government decided to exploit that loophole and to take advantage of the absence of policy? Yes, I am afraid that it was our dear friends the Liberal Democrats, who will do anything to get elected. They will cuddle you during the daytime only to cross you by nightfall. They scandalously seek and practise power without responsibility.

By way of illustration, let me take the House back to last year’s local elections and the night of 3 May 2007. It was a great evening, as you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Conservatives gained 921 seats. The Liberal Democrats, I am afraid, lost 246 seats, but it was described by the then leader of the Lib Dems, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), as a mixed bag of results—not an accurate judgment, I think, of the day’s events.

In Bournemouth, the big issue on the campaign trail was a proposal by the incumbents—the Lib Dems—to build a multi-million pound development on Bournemouth’s sea front. Such was the unpopularity of the proposal that it contributed to the Lib Dems’ losing control of the town hall. They lost 23 seats, returning only seven councillors out of 51.

On the election night itself, long after the working day was over, the Lib Dems tiptoed into the town hall, not to clear their desks or pick up their sandals, knowing that they would not be back in office, but to place the final signature on a controversial contract that committed the people of Bournemouth to a massive seafront development that they did not want. Why did they do this? Nobody knows. Even cross-examination by Jeremy Paxman on “Newsnight” could not get the chief local Lib Dem plotter, the aptly named Councillor Fudge, properly to explain that malicious, selfish and vindictive behaviour. Yes, there were inquiries. Even the Electoral Commission got involved, but it was eventually determined that nothing illegal had been done. Morally and ethically speaking, however, I believe that the Lib Dems are guilty as charged as they deliberately burdened a town with a development that it did not want and the new administration with the costs that it campaigned so hard to avoid.

My Bill would prevent such scandals from being repeated and other councils from being subjected to such tactics. How would it work? It would require all local authorities to introduce a policy preventing major financial or controversial decisions being made in the four weeks leading up to an election. It would be up to the individual councils to determine the size of the budget and the other parameters. All that would be required would be that the matter be debated locally and local decisions be made.

Local authorities need not wait for my Bill, which I hope will be passed, but can adopt an appropriate policy themselves. I encourage them to do so. However, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no council would be subjected to the costly, time-consuming and completely avoidable dramas endured by Bournemouth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.

The Question is that the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to oppose the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman should rise a little more promptly.

I rose immediately.

I just want to say a few words that show that the Bill is unnecessary. I have not followed the Bournemouth events in detail, but my understanding is that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has not given the full picture of what happened before the local elections last year. My understanding of the position is that the political decision was taken entirely properly before the election period and that all that remained to be carried out was the implementation of that which was in the hands of officers. No new political decision was taken later at all.

If that is the case, which is what I am led to believe, the normal rules were followed in Bournemouth as they have been in many local authorities up and down the country. In Southwark back in the ’80s, the outgoing Labour administration, thinking that it might be defeated at the polls, entered into a controversial planning application and a land property deal just before the election. The political decision was taken earlier, but the documents were signed on the day before the elections. I understand that that is legitimate if it is a matter of administration rather than political decision. If that is the case, the Bill is not necessary. We have plenty of legislation and plenty of controls on local councils, with an absolute guarantee that purdah applies in local government up to local elections in England.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who normally argues from his party’s position, which is that we do not need more legislation, will reflect on the fact that more legislation restricting local government is the last thing that any party in local government wants and any council in administration wants. That includes his party, which now runs Bournemouth council.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tobias Ellwood, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Richard Benyon, Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Edward Vaizey, Greg Clark and Anne Main.

Local Authority Powers (Election Campaigns)

Mr. Tobias Ellwood accordingly presented a Bill to impose restrictions on the types of decisions that local authorities can take during specified periods prior to local elections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 90].

We now come to the main business, the Opposition day debate on post office closures. I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and has placed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the proposal to close up to 2,500 post offices; recognises the vital role post offices play in local communities; notes the concern and unpopularity amongst the general public of closing such a large portion of the network; has concerns that the access criteria laid down for the closures consultation do not adequately take into account local geographical factors and public transport networks; is concerned that the consultation period is only for six weeks rather than three months, as recommended by Cabinet Office guidelines; believes that post offices must move with the times in the services they offer and that options for business expansion and developing business opportunities with local authorities should be explored further; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Limited to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices while these issues are re-assessed.

This matter affects both sides of the House in equal measure. I was concerned a moment ago that only two Labour Back Benchers were sitting in the Chamber but I see that the numbers are now swelling. I shall try to keep my remarks to a minimum, because I know that Members from all parties want to speak.

We are entering a critical phase of the Government’s closure programme. Half of the country’s constituencies have now gone through the process of consultation and as a result approximately 1,120 post offices are already destined to close. The network change is well on its way, yet the chorus of dissent that surrounded the then Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, when in 2006 he published his proposals for the most radical programme of cuts in the Post Office’s history has not faded away, as his successor will have hoped. In fact, the more people encounter the process at first hand, the more they realise that it is not just unfair, but in many respects illogical; not just badly thought-through, but in some cases even avoidable.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I have hardly got off first base, but I will. If I may, I will set the scene and then give way to a series of interventions from Members from both sides of the House so that I do not end up taking 40 minutes. The quicker I get through this, the better it will be for allowing everybody to have the chance to say what they want to.

I agree with what the Secretary of State has said on numerous occasions: we have to face the facts about the future of postal services in this country. The debate has not been convened whimsically. We understand that the Post Office is haemorrhaging around £4 million a week; that the development of online mail has eviscerated part of the Post Office’s traditional customer base; and that in this difficult business climate, uncertain times lie ahead.

Although the closure of post offices is one of the most emotional political issues, we in the Opposition do not lead with our heads. Let me make it clear that we fully expect the network to shrink in size. We have never given a guarantee that no post offices will close, because such a guarantee is not ours to give.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought that he might have been giving the Government too much of a defence in respect of the problems facing the Post Office. The effect of online ordering has been to increase the amount of delivery work undertaken by post offices. People order goods online, but delivering those goods is a new business opportunity for Royal Mail, with post offices as collection points.

The hon. Gentleman is potentially right, but we must distinguish between the post office network and Royal Mail, as it is the latter that makes those deliveries. That is an important distinction, and it must be admitted that the internet has displaced much of the revenue-earning activity previously enjoyed by post offices.

I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He was talking about the process by which the decision about closures was made. One post office to be closed in my constituency is in an area where a significant new housing programme is about to begin. The alternative post office is already notorious for being overcrowded and incapable of being expanded. Does that not suggest that the consultation process was a farce, and that what we are seeing is a lottery in order to meet a Government target?

My right hon. and learned Friend illustrates exactly the sort of example that is driving Members of this House to distraction. There appears to be a lack of commercial logic to many of the decisions being forced on the post office network.

My hon. Friend said that the consultation process was unfair, but is it not also fraudulent? In my area, we have been told that all that will happen if we succeed in persuading the Post Office to keep open one of the post offices that are threatened with closure in the Cherwell district is that it will simply go ahead and close another office in the district. It is clear that the Government are determined, come what may, to close all the post offices in Cherwell, however good the arguments against doing so may be. The consultation process is therefore wholly fraudulent.

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. It is something that I want to expand on, ever so briefly, in a few minutes. If I may put it this way, we are involved in a game of pass the parcel. All hon. Members have in their constituencies post offices that are due to be shut, but if they succeed in keeping one office open, another one elsewhere will be closed. Therefore, what might appear to be a local success for one hon. Member becomes a local difficulty for another. That is one of the main problems that we face.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee has reported on post office closures. I put in a very detailed draft of evidence, including nine recommendations for changing the closure programme. However, 50 other hon. Members from both sides of the House also put forward evidence, and they included Front Benchers from the Conservative party. If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about this matter, why did he not offer any evidence to the Select Committee?

Because I think that it is improper for a Front Bencher to try to pre-empt and influence a Select Committee in that way. The proper way for me to speak about these matters is at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. That is what I am doing now, on a day when the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to vote with the Opposition.

My hon. Friend is wholly right about displaced closures, but the problem is worse than he suggests. In my constituency, the county council is negotiating about taking over the post office at Laverstock on the edge of Salisbury, but despite that, the Post Office is insisting on closing it on 1 April and on removing the post office equipment—even though it might be taken on by the county.

Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. It fits exactly with the picture that we are painting—a picture that cannot fail to be persuasive for hon. Members on all sides of the House.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee—what used to be the Trade and Industry Committee—has looked into the matter quite deeply. The Committee is chaired by his colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff). It looked at the cost of haphazard closures, and reluctantly accepted that the Government’s plan was the only way forward. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) knows full well what the Committee recommended, and it looks a little sneaky to have this debate today, at a time when the Select Committee is away and the Chairman has no opportunity to reply. Is he afraid that some Conservative Back Benchers might have been persuaded by the Committee Chairman?

Much more sneaky is the fact that the hon. Gentleman is trying to hide behind the supposed conclusions of the Select Committee—which I think are not as he described—when he has signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The wording of that early-day motion is exactly the same as the motion under consideration today, so he can have no option but to vote with us—along with the 35 other Labour Members who have echoed, word for word, what we are calling for in this debate.

I was not one of those who signed the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but is there not an element of hypocrisy in his approach? The previous Tory Government closed 3,542 post office branches. Why did they do that?

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I advise the House that the word “sneaky” is just about allowable, as is the right hon. Lady’s use of the word “hypocrisy”. However, we must be extremely careful about the words that we use. I know that hon. Members care very strongly about these matters, but we should nevertheless choose our words with care.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the right hon. Lady should be aware of her own words. She said:

“I do not understand what the, so called, public consultation was for…I want Post Office Ltd to explain how this can amount to a meaningful public consultation, when they have ignored the views of 2,203 people.”

We are seeing a picture of inconsistency, but my purpose today is not to keep on pointing out the inconsistency between what Labour Members say at a local level and how they might vote tonight; rather, I want to urge them to vote with us so that they can prove that they are honest and consistent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one concern for people in constituencies such as mine in West Dorset is that the Post Office has absolutely refused to enter into discussions about how we might provide the voluntary effort that would cut its costs and keep the services open? Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs?

My right hon. Friend is right, but only half right. The Post Office has declined to embrace both voluntary efforts and legitimate commercial efforts. Even worse, it is discriminating against the commercial options that post offices and shops should be allowed to enjoy.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will, and then I shall do a rat-a-tat-tat after that.