(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on updates to the national security strategy, including policy on cybersecurity.

At 10 o’clock this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a written ministerial statement, in which he laid before the House this year’s update to the national security strategy. Accompanying the strategy was the first national cybersecurity strategy for the United Kingdom. Last week, the Government presented to the House the Digital Britain strategy. This country is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities of the digital age, but we can seize those opportunities only if people are confident that they can operate safely in cyberspace.

Every day, millions of people across the UK—our constituents—rely on the services and information that make up cyberspace. Indeed, 65 per cent. of UK households have access to the internet, and the figure is growing by about 8 per cent. a year. The national security strategy, published for the first time by the Government last March and updated this year, sets out an honest and transparent appraisal of the risks that we face, including the threat that organised crime poses to our country. Organised crime costs us around £20 billion a year, and we have a duty to the British public and to British industry to take measures dramatically to reduce that cost.

The Government also need to assess the threats from terrorist organisations and prepare our response to them; the public would expect no less. All those threats can arise in cyberspace. As the director general of the Security Service has said, a number of nations and organisations are

“trying to obtain political and economic intelligence at our expense”

and

“increasingly deploy sophisticated technical attacks, using the internet to penetrate computer networks.”

We know the importance that terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda and its affiliates, place on the internet and cyberspace, which are particularly important for propaganda reasons. We know that terrorists would like to be able to operate more effectively in cyberspace. I am not scaremongering, but we need to look at the issues. Our assessment at present is not that terrorists have the capability to mount attacks imminently, but that we must honourably prepare as terrorists become more sophisticated.

Such threats from states or terrorists could affect critical national systems, but there is also a real threat to millions of ordinary citizens—our constituents—as well as their transactions and the businesses for which they work. Online fraud generated some £52 billion worldwide in 2007. The average cost to companies of information security incidents is in the range of £10,000 to £20,000. For a large company, the cost can be as high as £1 million to £2 million. As the dependence on cyberspace grows, we need to ensure security, which is critical to the health of the nation.

As I mentioned, today the Government published, in a written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the first cybersecurity strategy. As a result, we will establish an office of cybersecurity in the Cabinet Office to lead on cybersecurity policy issues, and a cybersecurity operations centre, a multi-agency body, based alongside GCHQ in Cheltenham. That organisation will lead on operations and technical capabilities, which we will examine.

As a result of the new strategy, we will develop a cyber industrial strategy for the UK’s critical security needs, in the same way as we have a defence industrial strategy; we will develop cybersecurity skills for the UK, plugging existing gaps and creating more high-tech employment opportunities; we will make critical systems in the public and private sectors more resilient and enhance our ability to detect attack; we will develop international law and doctrines of national defence in cyberspace, working with other countries; we will consider better advice to business and citizens about the security-risk picture and the steps that they need to take to address it; and we will develop new strategies for tackling terrorist and criminal use of cyberspace with our colleagues in the Association of Chief Police Officers and its strategy on cybercrime, which is due out shortly.

We plan emergency responses, and the new centre will test the UK’s ability to respond to major attacks, which we obviously believe that we can prevent, but which we need to consider. As with our national security, it will be important that the Government’s powers are used proportionately and in a way that is consistent with civil liberty issues, as I know the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) would wish. So, from today, we will establish an ethics advisory group to advise on that issue, and I shall update the House on its membership when it is formed.

The centres will be operational in September, and new funding will be announced before then to meet their obligations, building on existing resources that were allocated largely to intelligence agencies. Again, I shall report back to the House on those matters.

The wider national security debate is important, and the Government have taken forward the good start that was made last year. We look ahead to the broad range of national security threats, and we look at how we can prevent them. Today, we have set out in the documents an updated analysis of the threats that we face, made commitments on what drives insecurity in the world—on conflict, energy, poverty and the impact of climate change—and published the cybersecurity strategy, which I hope will be the subject of some debate and interest.

Britain depends very strongly on the dedicated work of the armed forces, the intelligence services, the police and other services in the support of those strategies. I pay tribute to them all for the courage that they display every day of the week in often very difficult circumstances. I commend the document to the House and hope that the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be read with interest by right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House.

The Minister owes you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an apology for the public handling of this strategy. As we speak, the Prime Minister is at Detica, a cybersecurity company. Why is he not here making an oral statement? There is no more important responsibility of Government than national security, and, for a key development in the critical area of cybersecurity to be trailed as it has, leading to the first occasion that you, Mr. Speaker, have granted an urgent question, is not only disgraceful but, more alarmingly, shambolic. The Ministers directing the strategy, who are supposed to keep us safe, cannot even manage the orderly public release of new policy.

The lack of detail on cybersecurity in the national security strategy, which the Prime Minister presented last year, was an obvious area of weakness. The security industry publicly warned that the Government had severely underestimated the dangers that cyber attack poses and had accorded cybersecurity insufficient priority and budget. What has galvanised the Government into action? Has the threat from cyber attack grown in the past year, or has the swift and comprehensive response of the new American Administration made them realise that their priorities were wrong? It was an immediate priority for President Obama and, only four months into his Administration, he was reporting on the results. How can we be confident that the strategy before us reflects the proper American sense of priority, rather than being only a pale imitation?

How will the new office of cybersecurity and the new cybersecurity operations centre fit with the work of existing agencies? We already have a number of different agencies working in the area: the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the wider information assurance centre and the Communications Electronic Security Group, being the national technical authority for information assurance, which is based at GCHQ. All the above are already co-ordinated by a Cabinet Office-unit sponsor for information assurance. The Serious Organised Crime Agency and the police e-crime unit, based in the Metropolitan police, are responsible specifically for cybercrime.

The “Digital Britain” report, which the Government published last week, announced the formation of a tripartite initiative—the tripartite internet crime and security initiative—which will bring together parliamentarians, Government and business. The Government are in danger of presiding over a patchwork muddle of different agencies and mandates, to which they have now added an ethics advisory group. It is sad that Ministers now need advice on ethics. Will the new director instigate an immediate review of the mandates and achievements of all the different agencies involved in cybersecurity, to avoid overlap and ensure the best use of resources?

There is wholly insufficient time to examine the strategy through the means of an urgent question, but I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for commanding the Minister here today. Will the Government commit, at the earliest opportunity, to a full debate on the strategy, led by the Prime Minister and in Government time? We need a national security council with a dedicated staff and decision-making powers at the heart of the Government. We are not there yet.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. First, I assure him on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that we have acted entirely properly in bringing this matter before the House. You, Mr. Speaker, will know that this morning the Prime Minister issued a written ministerial statement that publishes the documents.

There has been press speculation about the issue, but I guarantee that we did not brief the press beforehand. If I can explain—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] If I can explain to hon. Members the circumstances that have given rise to press speculation—[Interruption.]

Order. May I interrupt the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) for a moment? I say to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), and others who are making quite a lot of noise that they are damaging their own chances of asking questions from the Back Benches.

At 10 o’clock this morning, the detailed documents were published. My noble Friend Lord West of Spithead has written to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you have received it by now; it has been copied to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). His letter outlines the circumstances of a specific aspect of today’s announcement: the name of the individual who will be in charge of the said units, which was the subject of a D notice. As hon. Members will know, a D notice is a voluntary agreement under which the press agree not to publish certain details. The D notice was issued two days ago, rather than today. That was an error, and if I need to apologise to the House on behalf of the Department, I will do so. The notice was issued under embargo, but that embargo was not taken by several among the press yesterday. That is an important issue, but the details of the statement—the key thing for the hon. Member for Reigate—are before the House in the written ministerial statement today.

The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned that we in the Government have not taken the threat seriously. A considerable amount of work was done by my predecessors and by my noble Friend Lord West of Spithead. Today, we have taken the opportunity to update the national security strategy and to bring forward the key issues. Like the President of the United States, we recognise that the cyber strategy covers a growing area of concern. Governance will be performed through my noble Friend’s reporting to the Prime Minister and through the National Security, International Relations and Development Committee, a Cabinet Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sits and which will look at those issues.

I am genuinely happy to debate the issues at an appropriate time. As the hon. Member for Reigate will know, business questions follow shortly. Government time is not in my gift, but the hon. Gentleman can ask a question during business questions if he wishes, and we will consider it as part of our discussions.

This issue is important to citizens in our country, in respect of both business crime and international terrorism. We believe that we will get it right, but we want cross-party support on the obligations because that matters to the people of this country.

rose—

Order. I appeal to Back Benchers to ask brief questions and to the Minister to offer brief replies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall try a question. As my right hon. Friend will know, I raised the issue of cybercrime and attack when we updated our Contest strategy earlier this year. I am deeply concerned that we not only co-ordinate correctly the organisations that can make a difference, but resource them effectively. My right hon. Friend will know that it is crucial to put resources into workstreams 3 and 5, on awareness and cultural change and on technical development, research and capability. We must also put resources into the e-crime unit, run by the Metropolitan police, which has already shown how effective it can be. As my right hon. Friend updates the House on resources in the summer, will he tell us that those specific areas will be resourced adequately so that the job can be done?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work as Home Secretary in preparing the ground for some of these issues. Several hundred million pounds are already being spent, mostly by organisations that are part of the GCHQ complex and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which is part of the Security Service. That money comes out of a single intelligence account. With my colleague Lord West of Spithead, I will examine the funding of new organisations before we establish this process in September, and I will report back to the House on the details of the work streams that my right hon. Friend mentioned.

I support the official Opposition’s tabling of an urgent question on this matter. Without it, we would not have been able to have a timely debate on the national security strategy or an opportunity to examine its implications. That would have been a major problem for the House.

The strategy clearly has the potential to defend us, but it could also have a significant impact on our civil liberties. We have to take the Minister’s word for it that what happened was a breach of an embargo, or possibly a leak, but I am sure that Members will be concerned that there has been a leak about the cybersecurity strategy, of all things.

One reason that the Government have given for bringing forward the strategy is the growing threat posed by hostile states, terrorists and criminals. We do not deny that that threat exists and is growing, but it is described in very broad terms. What criteria have the Government used to define hostile states, terrorists and criminals? To give us an idea of the scale of the threat that is posed, can the Minister tell us anything about how many attacks there have been on our networks, for instance over the past 12 months?

This Government have a rather illiberal and invasive overarching counter-terrorism strategy that includes such Orwellian measures as control orders. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the cybersecurity operations centre will not just be used for snooping on British citizens’ internet use? In the cyber strategy, there is mention that the Government will work closely with civil liberties groups. Which groups does the Minister have in mind, and at what point are they likely to be involved in the process?

Finally, as far as I can tell, there is no impact assessment in relation to the proposals. What are the cost implications? We do not deny the need to have a cybersecurity strategy, but we need to be certain that it will not have an impact on our civil liberties. That is the reassurance that we are seeking from the Minister today.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. May I give him that assurance immediately? The strategy is about defending civil liberties and ensuring that we protect people’s liberty to enjoy their lives free of crime and free of the terrorist threat. We have to have a balance between individual liberties and the issues set out in the cyber strategy. I will defend civil liberties and uphold rights, and that balance is extremely important. We will work through those issues as part of our discussions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the threat that has occurred to date. We are not aware of any major compromise of national security or key systems to date, but that does not mean that we are complacent. We brought forward the strategy precisely to ensure that we put in place mechanisms to monitor potential threats and attacks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not appropriate for me to go into the number of countries or agencies that might be involved, because I do not want them to know that we know they are involved. However, I assure him that we will balance liberties with national security.

On the cost element, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), I hope to report back to the House before early October about what costs are allocated to particular projects.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the way in which the Government have handled this matter. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate if the Minister had made an oral statement. However, my right hon. Friend mentioned organised crime in his answer to the urgent question. The director and the chairman of SOCA gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs this week, but no mention was made about the urgency of the cyber threat from organised crime. Can the Minister confirm that there have been discussions with the chairman and director of SOCA and that any concerns raised with him have been taken on board?

We have had discussions across government about the implications of the strategy. We are working on crime issues in particular, given my responsibilities, and they are important issues. With regard to the oral statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid the issues before the House this morning in a written ministerial statement. As I have mentioned, the problem with the breaches arose in relation to the D notice that was issued. Initially, our mistake was that we did not put it under embargo, as we should have. It was later put under embargo, but unfortunately the press published that D notice and made a story around it, without knowing what was in the document, which was published to the House at 10 am today.

The Minister will be aware how critical the counter-terrorism sub-committee has been, despite the slowness of establishing the new operations centre, and, similarly, how concerned we have been at the slowness of establishing the counter-terrorism units in the various regions up and down the United Kingdom. Can he assure us that there will be proper and sensible liaison between the two bodies, with effective sharing of intelligence, and that that will start not next year, but now?

Absolutely. Although I have been in this post for only two weeks and four days, I had a justice background in my previous Department, and I am urgently looking at those issues to ensure that the very things that the hon. Gentleman mentions are put in place. We need to ensure not just that Departments and the organisations within them are operating individually in their silos, but that we have co-operation across the board. Today’s cyber strategy is about establishing a unit in GCHQ under effective leadership to look at those issues across government. That is the objective.

I welcome today’s publication by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of a wide-ranging, cross-government and cross-agency cyber security strategy. Given the significance that the Obama Administration have placed on cyber security, will my right hon. Friend the Minister outline how we will be able to work with our closest security ally to maximise our joint capability and minimise duplication?

I suspect that my right hon. Friend has as much knowledge of the work done to date as my noble Friend Lord West, who was involved in producing today’s document, and I pay tribute to her for that. She makes a vital point. The internet and cyber security do not end at the boundaries of the United Kingdom. They are international and European issues, and ones on which we need to work closely with our allies in the American Administration. I am confident that the new unit will work closely with our colleagues in Washington and that it will have the same objectives, which are to tackle international organised crime, ensure that we are safe and try to prevent terrorist approaches to our cyber system.

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to civil liberties, but will the national security strategy include the establishment of a national database to maintain records of web page visits, e-mails and VoIP—voice over internet protocol—calls and whether the Government intend to introduce a compulsory register of all mobile phones in the country?

If I may, I would like to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the detail of that point. Let me re-emphasise, however, that the whole purpose of the ethics committee that we are establishing is to look at the liberty issues surrounding internet activity under the cyber strategy. We are working through the detail of how we will do that, but I will certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman after this statement. However, the key thing, which those in all parts of the House need to know, is that the liberty of individuals to enjoy their business, their communities and their private lives on the internet is important to the Government, as is, equally, the ability to ensure that they are not subject to crime, terrorist threats or distraction by people who have alternative methods to hand.

What a great shame it is that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has squandered his opportunity to hold the Government to account. Is not the key issue that there is state-sponsored hacking of key UK information networks on an industrial scale and that we have to transform GCHQ into a spy school for geeks who are more cunning than their Chinese counterparts?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a key issue. Today’s document is about the protection of the public and the protection of UK interests in the UK. It is about ensuring that we are prepared to assess and examine the threat, that people understand that threat and that people are supported in their businesses, in their private lives and in government to take steps to prevent that threat from arising. The protection of the public is the key element of today’s document. Without wishing to burden the hon. Member for Reigate, let me say that my hon. Friend puts his finger on an issue on which there is, I hope, cross-government and cross-party agreement.

Contrary to the Minister’s statement that the D notice and the information about the individual appointment were the only things in the public domain, on 15 June more details were put into the public domain, both online and in The Guardian, about the statement that the Government would set up an agency. Given the importance of information security and the Cabinet Office’s role in that, will the Minister initiate a leak inquiry into how the information got into the public domain, unless, of course, that is done deliberately by the Government in the next 14 days?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me say again that the detail of the announcement has been made public only this morning, in the ministerial statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My noble Friend Lord West of Spithead has written a letter to Mr. Speaker and the hon. Member for Reigate in confidence to explain the background to the D notice. I have given the House an account of that, and I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with it.

For some years I have had the privilege to work with the Information Assurance Advisory Council, which brings together government officials and the private sector on the important issue of information assurance. May I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the new body will reach deep into the private sector and ensure a proper sharing of expertise? After all, the most likely areas for attack are probably in the City of London and other areas where we need proper sharing of our intelligence and the intelligence that the private sector gathers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. In today’s document, which is clear and public, we have established eight work streams. One of the key work streams deals with skills, education, training and capability. The new unit will need to look at those issues and ask where the skills shortages are, where good practice is, which issues it will need to share and develop, and how it can do that in a way that helps businesses in particular, but also the general public and Departments, to protect and maintain the integrity of their cyber networks.

Will the Minister at least take back to his ministerial colleagues in other Departments the message that, whether it is deliberate or inadvertent, when advance news about matters that ought to be announced in this House leaks into the press, Ministers can expect to be summoned straight away to this House to answer urgent questions?

I think that you have made clear to my ministerial colleagues across the board the regime that you intend to operate, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues will help to support you in that objective.

Given that Estonia was the first country to experience the devastating effect of a cyber attack, can the Minister say a bit more about how we are working with our European partners, especially the Baltic states, which are probably on the front line of the threat?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the key things in the document, in work stream 7, is international engagement. One of the office’s new tasks will be to bring together the UK’s work with that of overseas partners and international organisations. Self-evidently, the European Union is one of the biggest local organisations in which we can get cross-governmental co-operation on some of the issues. That is important, and we will be commissioning working groups to take forward work across the board in the next few weeks and months.

There is a serious security concern for citizens, because, after all, the Government have shown themselves to be somewhat ineffective in preventing confidential information from falling into the wrong hands.

Further to the point about Estonia, is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the first organised cyber war ever launched against a country—namely, Estonia—not only on businesses but on private citizens? May I suggest that he recommend that the individuals responsible for developing the strategy here work directly with the Estonian authorities, which have not only experience of what happens when things go wrong but coping strategies to prevent it from happening again? I am sure that that would be useful for my constituents and all constituents across the United Kingdom.

We will certainly look at the experience of Estonia and at how we can learn from it. The hon. Gentleman’s key point is that everyone needs to have confidence in the use of the cyber network. People need to have confidence that their information is not being hacked into or copied, and that it will not be used for criminal or terrorist purposes. The key objective of the document is to ensure that we help to develop that confidence still further.

May I invite the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 29 June—Second Reading of the Parliamentary Standards Bill.

Tuesday 30 June—Consideration in Committee of the Parliamentary Standards Bill.

Wednesday 1 July—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Parliamentary Standards Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Saving Gateway Accounts Bill.

Thursday 2 July—Estimates [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on looked-after children, followed by a debate on road safety. Details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Looked-after Children (3rd Report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, HC 111 and Government response (4th Special report HC 787, to be published on Monday 29 June); Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010 (Eleventh Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2007-08, HC 460), and the Government’s responses (First and Second Special Reports, Session 2008-09, HC 136 and HC422).]

At 6 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Friday 3 July—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 July will include:

Monday 6 July—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.

Tuesday 7 July—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 1).

Wednesday 8 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 2).

Thursday 9 July—Topical debate, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve the Draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2009, followed by a motion to approve the Draft Council Tax Limitation (Maximum Amounts) (England) Order 2009.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 July will be:

Thursday 9 July—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled “Global Security: Iran”.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, but the way in which she appears to be presiding over House business at the moment does seem a tad shambolic. Last week, we were informed that the Government would be tabling today’s motions in good time to give the House as much opportunity as possible to look over the proposals. However, nothing appeared on the Order Paper until yesterday. Then, on the same day, the Government inexplicably withdrew the motion that would have established a new ad hoc Committee on reforming this House. Will she advise us as to quite what is happening? If, as I suspect, the Government were embarrassed by the gulf between the Prime Minister’s announcement and the proposed remit of the Committee, which was so narrow as to render the whole exercise absurd, why did not the Government simply support the amendments on the Order Paper that would have widened the Committee’s scope and spared the right hon. and learned Lady’s blushes? Or is the real truth that this whole episode was dreamt up in the No. 10 bunker merely to fill a space in a prime ministerial press release? When will the Committee now be established?

On the new Parliamentary Standards Bill, which we will debate in its entirety next week, will the Leader of the House give her guarantee that issues of privilege will not be discussed by the House at the Bill’s Committee stage until the Clerk of the House has given evidence to the Justice Select Committee, as I believe he is scheduled to do on Tuesday?

May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the status of the Government’s policy on identity cards? Four statutory instruments on ID cards were due to be debated last week, but then The Sunday Times reported—correctly, as it turned out—that they were to be shelved for a month. In view of your important and welcome statement on ministerial statements yesterday, Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. and learned Lady now promise that the Home Secretary will come to Parliament to clarify here what Ministers have been briefing in private—namely, that the Government realise that they are on to a loser and are getting ready to perform yet another major policy U-turn?

Similarly, will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm the mysterious whereabouts of the Postal Services Bill, on which the Business Secretary has staked his reputation and, along with it, the Prime Minister’s career? I have asked about this twice before and have twice received inadequate answers. There are only 16 sitting days left before the summer recess. The Bill’s First Reading was over four weeks ago and, as the right hon. and learned Lady knows, Second Reading would normally follow swiftly behind. Is the Bill going to be delivered from the upper House or has it—as I heard hon. Members saying just a few seconds ago—been permanently lost in the post?

In the provisional business that the right hon. and learned Lady announced last week, the Child Poverty Bill was scheduled for this coming Monday. Now that we are going to be debating the Parliamentary Standards Bill on Monday instead, will she give us a commitment that the House will indeed debate this important Bill before the summer recess? We on the Opposition Benches are full of contributions that we wish to make to the legislation. The issue is all the more important in the light of yesterday’s Office for National Statistics figures on the level of deprivation facing children growing up in London, nearly a quarter of whom are living in households where no one is working and which are plagued by obesity and crime. As the Leader of the House represents an inner-London borough, and for the sake of those whom the legislation seeks to protect, may I ask the her to guarantee not to lose sight of the Bill, and to bring it to the House as soon as possible?

Given the Prime Minister’s woeful performance at questions yesterday, may we have a full and urgent statement from him on financial honesty in the Government? Yesterday morning, Britain was found to be facing the biggest budget deficit in the world. At lunchtime, the Prime Minister’s attempts to defend himself in the Commons ended in ridicule. In the afternoon, the Governor of the Bank of England complained that he had been left in the dark about important aspects of Government policy, and delivered the final blow by calling on the Government to set tougher targets on the UK’s “extraordinary” debt levels. Is it not clear that the longer the Prime Minister deludes himself about being in power, the longer it will take the UK to recover?

Finally, may I simply note that, this week, we are celebrating the second anniversary of the right hon. and learned Lady’s ascension to her position as Leader of the House? I will send her a card saying “Now we are two.” Members may take that to mean anything they wish.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the motion on the Committee. The intention is that this Committee of the House will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and that it will consider the improvement of the processes for the Government being held to account by Members of this House. We tabled a motion, and amendments to it were tabled. We considered the amendments; in fact, more amendments have been tabled this morning. If we are trying to achieve consensus across the House, I think that it is right and proper that, instead of ploughing on with our resolution, we should listen to what is being said and see whether we can take on board the different points of view and proceed on a basis of consensus.

The shadow Leader of the House told everyone that he was a new man, but is it not quintessentially old politics to insist that we do not need to listen? As Leader of the House, it is important for me to listen to hon. Members when they table amendments, and to take into account what they suggest. I do not think that that is the sign of a shambles; it is the sign of how the Leader of the House should proceed. I do not think that it is a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to hear—I will talk to him and all other hon. Members about this—that we will proceed to bring forward a resolution, before the House rises, on which I hope the whole House can agree, so that we can set up the Committee and improve the way in which the House holds the Government to account.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Parliamentary Standards Bill. He has seen it; it has been published, and it will be debated on the Floor of the House over three days. He will see from the face of the Bill that the question of parliamentary privilege is not an issue in that Bill, so that is not a question that hon. Members need to concern themselves with. Essentially, the Parliamentary Standards Bill sets up an authority to deal with our allowances to ensure that they are established and administered independently and that the public can have confidence that that is the case. It will not trample on the question of privilege.

On ID cards, there is no change in Government policy. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Home Secretary keeps the matter under review at all times. If there is any change in policy, the House will be kept updated. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced biometric ID cards for foreign nationals, and I hope he supports that, as it is not only important for security, but speeds up the sorting out of identity questions so that access to visas, for example, is made easier for people who are genuinely who they say they are. He also knows that we are introducing this approach for air-side in airports, and that there will be no compulsory ID cards for everybody else without a vote in this House. If there is any change on that—I do not expect that there will be—the Home Secretary will keep the House informed. He keeps the matter under review, as I said.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Postal Services Bill. It is not announced for next week’s business or that for the week after. He will see that we had to make a space for three days for the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I think it is important, with a crisis of public confidence in the House, to bring forward this measure and address it quickly. At the same time, to ensure proper scrutiny of the measure while bringing it in expeditiously, we need to give adequate time for it to be debated on the Floor of the House. That is why debate of the Parliamentary Standards Bill will be across three days.

The Child Poverty Bill is not in the business that I have announced, but I hope that it will be brought in before the summer recess. I expect that to be the case, and on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that the Opposition will vote for it when it comes before the House.

On the economy, it remains the No. 1 priority of the Government to take action to protect businesses and people’s jobs, and to make sure that if people lose their job, they do not also lose their home. We will intervene and take action in all those respects, and we will make sure that we grow the economy out of recession rather than cut it, which is not the way to take us out of the recession.

I am a generous sort, and I like to give credit where credit is due. I entirely applaud what the Leader of the House has just said—that from now on, she is going to consult before putting motions before the House; she is going to listen to what people say, and then react to those requests. Hallelujah! That is what we have been asking for for years. If that has happened in respect of the Committee to be chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—I tabled a modest amendment, which was supported in all parts of the House, and the Leader of the House has now given me to understand that she will agree to it—it is very good news indeed.

When we look at today’s Order Paper, however, what do we see? We see motions 6 to 13, standing in the name of the Leader of the House, setting up the Regional Grand Committees. The right hon. and learned Lady knows that I support the idea of having such Committees, but has she consulted before tabling the motions? No, she has not. Has she canvassed the subject matter that the Regional Grand Committees will discuss? No, she has not. Has she sought convenient places and dates to enable those Committees to meet? No, she has not. All she has consulted is the so-called regional Ministers, who have then decided where those Committees will meet, when they will meet and what they will discuss. What sort of scrutiny of Government is that? Will she now withdraw motions 6 to 13 and talk to me and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) in order to move forward?

The Government need to come clean on the question of ID cards. The Conservatives changed their minds eventually, and former Home Secretaries—and there are enough of them—have changed their minds, so when are the Government going to admit that they will have to change their mind on ID cards and come to the position that we have advocated all along?

In looking at how this House scrutinises business, can we look seriously at how we scrutinise Government expenditure? As I have said before, there is no adequate mechanism for the House as a whole to look at Government spending. We have estimates days which do not involve looking at estimates; we have Consolidated Fund motions which do not involve any debate on the Consolidated Fund; and we give more scrutiny to a ten-minute Bill than to the Government’s entire spending programme. Can we have some major reforms to enable us to carry out such scrutiny, so that we are not simply asked to write out cheques? If that had happened, we might not have been facing the biggest financial deficit that this country has ever seen, and the biggest seen in Europe. Can we have a debate very soon, so that we can see how the Government plan, as the Governor of the Bank of England says,

“to return to a sustainable position over the lifetime of the next Parliament”?

That is crucial. It is no good pretending that the bills are not mounting up; we have to find a way of paying them.

Finally, I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has acceded the request I made last week about reconstituting the Science and Technology Committee. I suggest that the Committee be asked an early stage to look at the recent research of Professor Tonegawa, published in Neuron magazine, which reveals that we edit our memories when fast asleep. Could that explain the difference between what the Prime Minister says and what he does?

The question of what the Science and Technology Committee looks at is a matter for that Committee—if the House establishes the new Committee, as I am sure it will when we reach that part of our business this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation relating to the Regional Grand Committees. I remind the House that motions will come before hon. Members later this afternoon to establish such Committees and to ensure that they sit in September, in the regions. Regional Grand Committees are Committees of all Members in a region, and they will look at how Government agencies and policies are working in that region. There was consultation, and it was with the Regional Select Committees. It is not my fault if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not sit on those Committees, or if the official Opposition do not want to join the Regional Select Committees. I think that they should join them; on behalf of the regions they represent, they should hold Government agencies to account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend and play a part with regard to the Regional Grand Committees, and the Regional Select Committees as well.

On ID cards, I have nothing to add to what I said to the shadow Leader of the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked about scrutiny by the House of Government spending. It is not true to say that there is no scrutiny of Government spending: we have oral questions, the pre-Budget report and debates, as chosen by the Liaison Committee, of Select Committee reports. How the House scrutinises public spending is a subject that could fall within the remit of the Committee that we hope to establish under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).

I have already said that I want to listen and consult before I table motions, and it is obviously even more necessary to listen and consult when amendments are forthcoming. There is nothing wrong, however, with the process of tabling a motion, seeing that there is a whole heap of amendments and then talking about the matter. That is not a U-turn; it is not weakness or backing down; it is about setting out a position, seeing what people like—or, in this case, dislike—about it and thinking again.

rose—

Order. Many Members want to contribute, so I appeal to each Member to ask one brief supplementary question.

On 15 June, for the first time ever, more Labour peers voted against the Government than with them, to close the loophole that allows tax exiles to bankroll UK political parties. Will my friend seek to reverse that vote when the Political Parties and Elections Bill comes back to the Commons, and will we get that Bill before the recess?

When the Bill comes back to this House, the Minister concerned will make the position clear, no doubt having discussed it widely with Members on both sides of the House before doing so.

Will the Leader of the House make time within the parliamentary timetable to revisit the recently imposed abolition of the de minimis rules in the Register of Members’ Interests? I have been told in all solemnity by the registrar today that in future every bunch of flowers will have to be registered. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Lady that that will result in not only my entry in the register, but those of several female Members, having more petals than the average botanical gardens. Can she make time to consider the question? Perhaps we should go with Gilbert and Sullivan: “The flowers that bloom with the speech, tra-la, have nothing to do with the case.”

There is a de minimis rule for donations, which is 1 per cent.—£650. Unless the bunch of flowers given to the right hon. Lady is worth more than £650—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will bear with me, I am trying to explain the situation. If there is a donation, a de minimis rule will apply, and I suspect that when people give her flowers, it is a donation rather than payment for services. If there is payment for services, in cash or in kind, that needs to be declared. It is quite easy for hon. Members to work out whether the item is a gift given after something has been done, or payment for services. If payment for services has taken place, there is no de minimis rule, nor should there be.

Can we have a debate on the impact of high electricity prices on manufacturing in the United Kingdom, particularly on energy-intensive industries such as aluminium smelting? UK companies are finding such prices difficult, and that is threatening UK jobs and production.

Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are very concerned about increased energy prices, generated particularly by the cost of oil. I will ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to my hon. Friend about that.

Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the new rules that come into effect next Wednesday are virtually unworkable. If I make an after-dinner speech and my wife is presented with a bouquet of flowers, those become registrable. Under the Parliamentary Standards Bill, failure to register becomes a criminal offence—and if I ask her to give them back, I will be in even deeper trouble. When will the Leader of the House reply to the letter I wrote to her on 2 June asking her to introduce a sensible de minimis threshold for that part of the register?

I think that the guidance will be workable. Obviously, we will ensure that we work closely with the registrar of financial interests to ensure that Members understand the rules clearly. There is no intention to have an unworkable system. The House supported the resolution for a register because the public are entitled to know, if Members are receiving payments for services, who is paying them and what they are paying them for.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to find time for a debate on the quality of advice being given to people in jobcentres, particularly in south London? I am increasingly aware that many of the new deal advisers are unaware of the services and support that they can provide to lone parents returning to work.

Department for Work and Pensions questions are on Monday, when perhaps my hon. Friend can put that question to Ministers, who are very concerned to ensure high-quality work in jobcentres.

May I say that the Conservative Members who have spoken about minimum payments are entirely right?

May I ask the Leader of the House about English Heritage’s launch yesterday of “Heritage at Risk”? It cites one in seven conservation areas as being at risk. Given the Government’s failure to bring in a heritage protection Bill last year, can we have an urgent debate on what other measures can be taken to protect listed and other buildings that are deteriorating and being demolished because of lack of action by the Government?

I will ask Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether any of his concerns come within the purview of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it has questions next week.

May I congratulate the Leader of the House on recognising the strength of support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) yesterday, and on giving herself and the Government more time to think carefully about these matters? When she does so, will she think particularly carefully about the distinction between Government time and time that should properly be controlled by the House? Of course every Government have the right to introduce the legislation which they proposed when being elected, and should have plenty of time for that, but surely all other business is a matter for the House, including all matters of scrutiny of the Government. It is not for the Government to decide how much and what sort of time should be given to such scrutiny.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend. It is important that a democratically elected Government are able to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to get their business through the House, and that the House of elected Members makes sure that that legislation is properly scrutinised and that the Government continue to be held to account. That is why I hope that the Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), will be able to look across those issues.

Can we have an urgent debate on negative equity in the housing market? The recent rise in negative equity across the country has been most pronounced in Northamptonshire and the east midlands, and thousands of people are in real trouble?

Negative equity is a particular concern if people cannot afford to stay in their homes and are forced to sell them at a very low market value. That is why we have taken a range of actions to protect people from being forced into repossession, including the support for mortgage interest scheme, the homeowner mortgage support scheme, the mortgage rescue scheme, the repossession prevention fund and the mortgage pre-action protocol. Repossessions, although rising, are still way below the level in the previous recession, and we are taking all the action that we can to prevent them from rising faster.

My right hon. and learned Friend will have seen in this morning’s papers and elsewhere that energy companies—electricity and gas suppliers—are being accused of grossly overcharging their customers. It is also suggested that Ministers should have a strategy to intervene if such companies refuse to reduce their prices by the end of December. Will she ask the Minister responsible to come to the House and reveal his plans for interventions so that people in this country are not overcharged for what should rightfully be subject to a true, fair and proper price set by a regulator?

The issue is very important for industry and businesses as well as people in their own homes. I will discuss with the Minister responsible the best way to keep the House updated on Government action in this important respect.

It has emerged that the now Defence Secretary told me and the families of 14 service personnel who died aboard Nimrod XV230 that the aircraft had been made safe, despite being warned that it was impossible to be sure that that was true. We were repeatedly told that defence consultants QinetiQ agreed that the aircraft was safe to fly, despite the company warning that

“no statement can, or has been made”

to that effect. Can we have a debate in Government time to learn which version is correct?

If an hon. Member is to raise in business questions an important point on a matter of great seriousness and heartfelt concern to many individuals, it is worth giving me notice of it in advance, so that I can give a proper, fuller answer, having consulted the Minister responsible in advance. I will draw Ministers’ attention to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

May we assume that the listening and consultation applies to Labour Members as well as to the Opposition? Does it explain the absence of the Postal Services Bill, which has not arrived in the House? Is that because Ministers have found the strength, having listened to scores, indeed hundreds, of Labour MPs, to ensure that the part-privatisation of Royal Mail does not go ahead? If that is the order of the day, well done!

On Leader of the House issues, if my hon. Friend looks at the amendments that were tabled to my motion, he will see that they are in the names of Members on both sides of the House, including on our own Labour Benches. It is a question not just of cross-party talks with Front-Bench spokesmen but of looking at all the names of hon. Members on the Order Paper, including those on our side of the House. I shall refer his comments to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the NHS in managing its land assets? Putney hospital has been derelict for 10 years. At the eleventh hour, NHS London has pulled the rug on its redevelopment into badly needed GP premises. Clearly there is a general issue about bureaucracy. May we have a chance to debate that in the House?

It is always worth drawing such issues to the attention of Health Ministers in oral questions. Perhaps the hon. Lady will look for an opportunity to do that. It is very important that the NHS manages its assets, including its land assets, properly. That is even more important against a background of hundreds of millions—in fact billions—of pounds of extra investment into the NHS. That is important investment to be made to help improve that vital public service, but obviously we want to ensure that every pound is well spent.

May we have a debate in Government time about the provision of apprenticeship schemes when local authorities award contracts to the private sector? It should be incumbent on local authorities to ensure that when they award contracts to private sector companies, such companies have approved accredited apprenticeship schemes that allow apprentices to attend further education colleges. Dundee city council in my constituency has just awarded a contract to a private sector company, but we have yet to receive assurances from the separatist Scottish National party-led council that it will ensure that an apprenticeship scheme is in place.