If he will make a statement about the role of the reserve forces. [31403]

The reserve forces support the armed forces in a wide range of operational circumstances. We very much value that contribution, and the link that they form between military life and the civilian community. Their roles are being taken fully into account in our work on the strategic defence review, and our main priority is to make our reserve forces as usable and effective in future as they have been in the past.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past two years, the 3rd battalion of the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire, which is based in my constituency, has supplied a total of 50 all ranks to support regular forces in a wide range of locations around the world, including Bosnia? Do not the Territorial Army and other reserve forces have a vital role to play in supporting our regular forces and ensuring that we achieve our military objectives, including humanitarian and peacekeeping objectives? Will he ensure that that is properly taken into account during the strategic defence review, and reflected in the White Paper when it is published?

Yes. We should all wish to pay tribute to the role that has been played, not only by the 3rd battalion of the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire, but by the other Territorial Army units, which have done so well in providing members for our activities, not least in Bosnia. We shall, of course, take account of the utility and effectiveness of the Territorial Army and the contribution that it has made to our operations in the past. Like all other elements of our armed forces, it must be rigorously scrutinised, with the aim of ensuring that, in future, all our reserve forces are as usable and effective in the new circumstances as they have been in the past.

Are not combat units the most difficult part of an Army to reinforce? Does the Minister agree that, whereas one can put civilians with specialist qualifications into uniform comparatively easily, the Army is the only organisation that can train people to serve in combat units, and that we neglect at our peril the role of people serving in combat units?

We would neglect that area at our peril, which is precisely why the Government have no intention of neglecting it. As the complexity of warfare and the security situation increases, many areas of the battle on land and air and in the sea become extremely complex. Logistics and other areas which, in a flexible, deployable force, in the past may not have received the emphasis that they should have done, are another subject, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point on combat units, which is why we shall place such emphasis on them.

Is not the most valuable 2 per cent. of my hon. Friend's budget the part that is spent on the Territorial Army, especially the infantry battalions—not only because of the links that they forge with local communities, but because of the training role that they play through the Army Cadet force? The London Regiment, whose headquarters are in my constituency, looks after no fewer than 32 Army Cadet force detachments and is greatly valued by the local community.

Far be it from me to make invidious comparisons between such elements of the British armed forces. However, I take the point about the importance of the Territorial Army—not only its operational support to the regular Army, but its role as the link between the civilian and military community, its role in the regeneration of forces against, perhaps, a more distant threat, and its role in recruitment and in fostering the Army Cadets movement.

The Minister will understand the concern in the Territorial Army and the volunteer reserves generated by the strategic defence review, which is studying its role. Originally, we were told that that review would be completed by last December. We were then told it would be completed in the spring. Last week, the Green Paper on the Defence Diversification Agency stated that an announcement would be made "later this year". Can the Minister bring to an end that damaging uncertainty by announcing a firm date by which the review will be both completed and published?

If anything, the damage is done by those who would rather have the review rushed than right. Unlike the previous Government, we are carrying out a detailed and in-depth strategic defence review to ensure that our forces are not hollowed out and that they are sustainable, deployable and as effective in the future as they were until relatively recently. Under the Conservative Administration, the Territorial Army had establishment figures of 91,000, which sounded marvellous until we found out that the actual figures were only 75,000. Similarly, when the figure fell to 59,000, we found out that it was actually only 55,000. The stronger the rhetoric from the Conservatives, the weaker the forces that they produced.

If he will make a statement on the Government's smart procurement initiatives. [31404]

Smart procurement is a ruthless examination of how value for money from our procurement programme can be improved to ensure faster, cheaper and better delivery of our future requirements.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the steps that he and the Government have taken to improve the procurement process, which will result in a better deal for the taxpayer and the defence industry as a whole and for my constituency in particular. Is that not the best way to ensure that we avoid the expensive delays, waste and cost overruns that came to characterise the procurement policy of the Conservative party?

My hon. Friend is right and, coming from Barrow, he knows a little about procurement. I know that he will be feeling a special sense of pride, as will Barrow this week, as HMS Invincible, which was built there, steams home after distinguished duty in the Persian Gulf. On behalf of the taxpayer, we are trying to ensure that the cost and delivery overruns that were the experience of the past are minimised and, hopefully, eliminated.

The Secretary of State will recall that the Scottish Labour party thought that it would not be smart to continue procuring Trident. Why are he and his hon. Friends so unsuccessful at persuading members of the Labour party in Scotland to adopt pragmatic defence policies? Is that not a case of old Labour fighting back and winning? Does not the clear message from the Scottish Labour party show that defence is not a priority, and does that not seriously undermine the right hon. Gentleman's negotiating position with the Treasury?

No, it does not. The Scottish Labour party conference is entitled to express a view but, since it contradicts the manifesto commitment that we gave at the last election and that we intend to stick to, the decision is merely an expression of opinion. Of course, the Scottish Conservative party got so out of line with the country as a whole that it does not exist any more.

What amount and proportion of his Department's annual expenditure was allocated to recruitment advertising in 1997–98. [31405]

Some £22.71 million was allocated to service and Ministry of Defence civilian recruitment advertising in the financial year 1997–98. That represents 0.1 per cent. of the Department's expenditure allocation for the year.

I am grateful for that reply. On reflection, does the Minister agree that probably the greatest disincentive to recruiting people into our armed services in recent years has been the cases of Privates Clegg and Thain and of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? Given the extreme anger felt by so many of my constituents at the continuing imprisonment of the two Scots guardsmen, will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the appropriate ministerial colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to find out what Government action can be taken, as the issue has now become very much a political one?

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I shall take the same position as all previous occupants of this ministerial post—I shall not intervene in the judicial process. I cannot agree that the issue has had a major effect on the level of general recruitment. The instability and insecurity engendered under the previous Administration—including, whatever their intent, their cack-handed approach to redundancies—and the general lowering of morale all contributed to the desperate situation.

Following my hon. Friend the Minister's most welcome announcement, will he agree that those quarterly figures demonstrate that the Government have already had some success in tackling the dreadful shortfall in recruitment in the armed services that they inherited from the previous Government? Will he join me in welcoming the success in Dunfermline in Scotland of the initiative that was developed by Lauder college and Dunfermline's Army recruitment centre, which was so successful in recruiting young unemployed people to the Army that, for the first time, that Army recruitment centre exceeded its recruitment target when it signed up its 100th recruit last week?

I extend my congratulations to that recruitment office, which I know has exceeded its target for the first time, and to Lauder technical college on its gateway courses, which we hope will help to inform our approach nationally. Those gateway courses are one of a large range of initiatives that have been introduced since 1 May last year. We take this opportunity to tell anyone outside the Chamber who may read our debates that the armed forces are back in business. There are 25,000 opportunities a year for new recruits to have a rewarding and challenging career with skills and training that are second to none.

I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for what the Minister said about the improvement in the figures. I am also sure that he would agree that the sacking of Major Joyce is hardly something that will excite young graduates or others to want to join the armed forces. What steps will the Government take to improve the situation for well-trained young service men who, sadly, have to rely on state benefits to supplement their incomes? Again, I should have thought that that was a serious impediment to recruitment. Finally, can he tell me whether the recruitment drive around the nightclubs of the north of England, which was announced some months ago in the Chamber, has met with any success?

On the first point, that is a personal and personnel matter between Major Joyce and his employer, the Army. It would be quite wrong for me to comment on what is a personal matter, or for Ministers to become involved in it. I merely say that, if the Army Board calls on any soldier to resign or retire prematurely, he can, should he so wish, seek redress against that decision through the chain of command, the Army Board and ultimately the monarch, and then seek judicial review in the divisional court of the High Court.

If he will make a statement on the process by which the complaints of officer ex-prisoners of war and protected personnel regarding pay deducted during incarceration were investigated. [31406]

In response to a number of submissions from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, the previous Government established a thorough review to examine the deductions, the pay policy and its implementation. Following the general election, those submissions and the report of the review were presented to me. I considered them with great care and announced my conclusions on 24 July last year. I am satisfied that the process followed was sound. The report is available in the Library, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Minister aware that one of the leading campaigners on the issue—my constituent, Group Captain Ingle—fought for this country in the Battle of Britain, and was three times shot down and twice wounded in action before becoming a prisoner of war? Why does the Ministry continue to deny the requests of those incarcerated in Germany and Italy in the second world war to be heard and to contribute their first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case?

No one takes away one iota from the record of both Group Captain Ingle and the many other officer personnel who were prisoners of war. Many submitted their views to the Ministry of Defence, and those were considered in the review. The report shows that the facts do not bear out their case. That view was taken by previous Governments. I examined the case with considerable care, and the conclusion was that it did not stand up. It gave me no great pleasure to draw that conclusion, but those were the facts of the matter.

The Minister has told us that he does not agree that the written statements made out the case, but surely the question—to which I should still like an answer—was why those statements, apparently showing that pay that was withheld should now be disbursed, were not, according to those who submitted them, given sufficient weight in the investigation. Would it not have been better to allow the witnesses to give oral evidence, so that they could at least feel that their case had been made directly to the Minister? Perhaps his decision, which is disappointing at best, could thereby have been changed.

A number of representations were made, as well as further follow-up representations. They have been deeply examined, especially in the light of contemporary evidence and the decisions that were taken at the time. Following representations made at the time, those matters were considered by Ministers in the immediate post-war Government, who were much closer to the issue. When we looked back in our review, it appeared that their reasons were sound. That has been the view of successive Governments of different political complexions.

I do not remember many protests from Tory Members in the previous Parliament, or at any time in the past 18 years. That said, is my hon. Friend aware that some Government Members are unhappy—I certainly am—because we are not sure that the right decision was made? Bearing in mind the services of the ex-officers and their bravery in the most just war that this country has ever been engaged in—a war that has been over for 53 years—the matter should be re-examined.

Not only the prisoners of war, but all those who served in the armed forces in the war, deserve our enormous and unending gratitude. We had to consider the facts concerning the deductions of pay from officer prisoners of war and protected personnel and determine whether there was a case for making repayments to them after the war.

Does the Minister accept that former officer prisoners of war and protected personnel who had their pay docked when they were incarcerated in POW camps—and their families—feel a genuine sense of injustice? They feel that they have facts that bear out their case and they have—as, indeed, has one of my constituents—raised real questions about the report to which the Minister referred. To satisfy the feeling that there are facts and records to bear out that sense of injustice, is not now the time to call for an independent inquiry, so that people can present their evidence orally, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) suggested, and feel that a decision is being made independently of Government?

The hon. Lady should understand that her Government came to a similar conclusion. Her views are not universally held by ex-officer prisoners of war, several of whom have written to the papers expressing the view that they do not wish to be associated with the campaign. There would be a reason for setting up an independent or a different inquiry if all those who had examined the case in depth and in detail had not concluded that the case is not made and that the facts do not bear out the claims. Therefore, I believe that we have come to the right conclusion, as did previous Governments of both political parties.

What targets his Department have set to increase the number of people from ethnic minorities in Britain's armed forces. [31407]

The Government are determined that access to the armed forces is open to the widest possible reservoir of talent and, as part of that, the armed forces should better reflect the ethnic composition of our society. As part of that commitment, for the year starting in April, the goal for each service will be that 2 per cent. of new recruits this year should be from the ethnic minorities, with the figure rising annually by 1 per cent., so that it reaches 5 per cent. by the end of the financial year 2001–02 and, in time, reflects the proportion of people from ethnic minority communities in the wider population.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What targets have been set for the Household Division, which, under the previous Government, was singled out for criticism by the Commission for Racial Equality?

Exactly the same targets have been set for the Household Division. I wish to express my gratitude for the way in which the Household Division has tackled the issue. We are working in partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality, and I have been impressed by the determination of the leadership of the Household Division, which stems from the reasons that I mentioned earlier—the effectiveness of our armed forces and their ability to recruit from the widest possible reservoir of talent—and is nothing to do with political correctness. I have been impressed by the commitment to pursuing that agenda that has been shown by the leadership.

I congratulate the Minister on the progress that he is making on a difficult, but essential and worthwhile, task. Does he agree that all three services have long recognised that it was not being done as well as it should be, and that they are determined to achieve much better figures? Is it not important that, when possible, members of the ethnic minorities should be able to serve together in bigger blocks than just one or two, which would make them feel more comfortable and perhaps would give them a better start?

Yes, I am glad to respond positively to both those points. No one should be under any illusions that the issue is not difficult and complex. The answer does not lie entirely with the armed forces, and we are building on the previous relationship with the Commission for Racial Equality. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as we move on from a situation in which individuals are isolated, and therefore more exposed to those elements whom we wish to remove from the armed forces, it is better if larger numbers can be kept together for the sake of solidarity in the wider group. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken.

If he will make a statement on the deployment of British troops to the Persian Gulf. [31409]

HMS Invincible, now relieved by HMS Illustrious, and all our service and civilian personnel deployed to the Gulf, have made a valuable contribution in helping the United Nations Secretary-General achieve an agreement with Iraq. Our forces will remain there to ensure that the agreement Saddam Hussein's Government have entered into is tested, adhered to and obeyed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does not the agreement signed between Saddam Hussein and Kofi Annan represent a victory for diplomacy backed by the threat of force? In the light of my right hon. Friend's remarks about what is happening now, is it not important that our troops remain deployed until we are certain that Saddam Hussein meets his agreement?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the lesson of the agreement achieved by Kofi Annan in Baghdad is that diplomacy without the threat of force would not have produced the result that the world felt so relieved about. The United Nations Secretary-General's words—

"You can do a lot with diplomacy but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by firmness and force"—

Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that to deploy forces in far-flung theatres such as the Persian Gulf, it is vital to have anti-submarine warfare capabilities? Will he comment on the grave concerns expressed in a letter in The Times on 5 March by Sir Patrick Duffy, a Navy Minister in the previous Labour Government, about the proposal that the 12-strong hunter-killer submarine fleet is likely to be cut in the strategic defence review?

Sir Patrick Duffy, who is a good friend of mine, was one of those consulted during the many discussions that we had in the strategic defence review. I know his strong view about naval power in the future. The strategic defence review will take account of all potential threats to Britain's security interest, and will reach a balanced outcome.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the end of the Gulf war, Saddam has spent some $1 billion developing 45 so-called palaces while his people are starving? Do not that and the expenditure on the programme of weapons of mass destruction show that Saddam, not the west, is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people?

My hon. Friend is right. There is an iniquitous aspect to the propaganda put out by Saddam that we in the rest of the world are responsible for the suffering of his people because of the imposition of sanctions. He alone is responsible for the sanctions regime being in place, and for it being in place so long. As she rightly says, an expenditure of some $1.2 billion since the Gulf war on building 40 lavish presidential palaces is astounding. His people would be appalled if they knew of it. The new oil-for-food resolution, 1153, allows the Iraqi regime to spend $5.2 billion every six months on essential food and medicines. The track record suggests that he will not use it correctly but we must hope that, having been given that flexibility, the poor people of Iraq will benefit from it.

The whole House was immensely proud of our forces in their recent deployment to the Gulf, and we remain concerned for their safety. Given the changing nature of the threat, the increased threat of chemical and biological weapons, and the fact that our main ally, the United States, is embarked on a programme to inoculate all its service men and women against anthrax in the next couple of years, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the offer of inoculation to our troops in the Gulf was left so late this time? Is it his policy that inoculation will remain voluntary, and will those inoculations be recorded by a new system, as envisaged by the previous Government?

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I shall simply respond factually to those questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the announcement of the decision to vaccinate against anthrax was taken simultaneously by the American Government, the British Government and the Canadian Government last week: that was not an accident. Although the threat assessment is still low, the danger still exists.

What action his Department is taking in relation to anti-personnel land mines. [31410]

What steps his Department is taking to help those involved in humanitarian demining. [31414]

The Government have been at the forefront of international moves towards a global ban on anti-personnel land mines and in providing assistance to humanitarian demining. We shall soon destroy about 1 million anti-personnel land mines, keeping only a very small number needed for training in mine clearance. We have also established a mine information and training centre.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the late Diana, Princess of Wales for her contribution to raising awareness of land mines, which have killed thousands of innocent men, women and children throughout the world? Does he agree that the British Army is doing an excellent job and playing a major role in eradicating land mines? Will he tell the House what further steps he intends to take during our presidency of the European Union to eradicate land mines, which are killing almost 70 people a day?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the pioneering work of Diana, Princess of Wales in drawing attention to the land mine menace, which still plagues our planet. Her legacy will continue through the Ottawa treaty, which was signed by many countries that are now dedicated to eradicating the weapon from the earth. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to use the formidable expertise of the British Army and to ensure that it is able to help not only other military agencies but the civil and humanitarian charitable community in dealing with a weapons system that has damaged or killed many millions of people and has the potential to continue to do so in future.

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I have received considerable representation from my constituents, who share my horror at the threat land mines pose to the life and health of children living in many countries. Will he investigate the possibility of his Ministry providing equipment to people working on humanitarian de-mining, so that we can make progress toward ending the tragedies that happen every day?

I welcome my hon. Friend's concern, which is shared by many thousands of people in this country and millions around the globe. Her horror and outrage is well reflected within the Government. I can announce today that we are about to gift to the Halo trust—an organisation with which Princess Diana had much to do—10 surplus Volvo medium-wheel tractors, valued at £125,000. They will increase considerably the rate of mine clearance and the safety of operators once the Halo trust has suitably armoured them. We believe that this is a good and meaningful contribution to the work being done by that agency, and we shall look at what else we can do. I am extremely proud that this Government have led the way in the campaign against anti-personnel land mines. They are a blight on the face of the earth, and the sooner they are outlawed for ever, the safer our world will be.

I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned the Halo trust. Is he aware that that trust and other non-governmental organisations are doing much brave and dedicated work clearing anti-personnel land mines throughout the world, including Afghanistan? Is he also aware that British troops in Bosnia are clearing a large number of anti-personnel mines? It is difficult and dangerous work, and there does not seem to be any co-ordinated effort between the stabilisation force and the large number of countries that are participating in the work in Bosnia. Will the Secretary of State undertake to raise that matter in the United Nations to see whether there can be a co-ordinated effort to have a strategic plan to clear the mines?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest and concern and agree that a bipartisan approach, which should be built on, is being taken on anti-personnel land mines. The expertise of our armed forces in the area can rightly and properly be put to much use, which is what I have tried to do since Labour came to office 10 months ago.

What assessment he has made of the current operational roles of the Parachute Regiment. [31411]

The operational roles of all elements of the Army are being looked at as part of the strategic defence review.

I thank the Minister for his reply, which was not as comprehensive as the leaks to the press over the weekend. Will he confirm that the identity, traditions and, above all, command structure of the Parachute Regiment will not be changed as a result of his Department's strategic defence review?

I am delighted to pay tribute to the glorious history of the Parachute Regiment and the contribution that it has made to the armed forces in a relatively short space of time.

Order. I call Mr. Brazier, who served in the Parachute Regiment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the special qualities and military skills of the Parachute Regiment and of its supporting airborne, engineer, artillery and logistic units go far beyond their means of delivery on to the battlefield and should be highlighted, not watered down, in the review? Does he also agree that the two Territorial Army Parachute Regiment battalions and other airborne and commando units are among the best and most flexible units in the TA?

Thank you for the background information, Madam Speaker.

My research is very good.

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is a fine big man.

If newspaper reports prove correct and the Parachute Regiment, in a new form, moves to the garrison town of Colchester, where 24 Air Mobile Brigade is based, I can say that it will be given a warm welcome. Does the Minister agree that the traditions of the Parachute Regiment will continue, as did those of the cavalry regiments following mechanisation? I believe that there is a future for the Parachute Regiment, albeit in a different guise, and welcome the Minister's assurance that it will live on.

I thank the hon. Gentleman and note his comments. If those press reports are accurate, I must have spent the past eight months undertaking a different defence review from the one the newspapers have reported.

If he will make a statement on Defence Medical Services. [31412]

Defence Medical Services continues to carry out its duties with professionalism and dedication, both in peacetime and in support of operations. We are urgently addressing shortfalls in manpower and operational medical equipment in the context of the strategic defence review. We are also reviewing the future arrangements for secondary care.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the state of Defence Medical Services is an indictment of the condition in which it was left by the Conservative Government? What steps are being taken to rectify equipment and personnel shortages?

We knew in opposition that there were problems with Defence Medical Services, and just before the general election, the Defence Committee highlighted its parlous state. Detailed scrutiny has revealed that we had not realised how bad things were. There are severe manpower shortages and such a lack of proper investment that we could not properly support a single operational brigade without implementing wider measures such as the use of reserves.

The Minister's statement that steps will be taken to improve the capability of Defence Medical Services is welcome, not least because it shows that the Government are responsive to Select Committee recommendations. Will he improve the quality of Defence Medical Services by taking three comprehensive steps: by providing an adequate career structure for medical officers in the three services; by increasing the number of defence medical units in general hospitals; and by augmenting the capacity and range of responsibilities of medical reservists of all three services?

The hon. Gentleman asks about the career structure. He will know that this year's settlement for dentists, for instance, was widely welcomed. We are considering the reintroduction of distinctions in the medical services that are comparable with what is outside. There is a range of instruments at our disposal, including, as he said, the wider and perhaps earlier use of the reserves in the Defence Medical Training Organisation.

If she will examine the case for establishing a human rights Select Committee. [31438]

The White Paper "Rights Brought Home" said that the Government favoured the establishment of a new parliamentary Committee with functions relating to human rights. We intend to take into account what is said during the passage of the Human Rights Bill before deciding what form of parliamentary Committee to recommend to the House.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet a group of hon. Members who take a particular interest in human rights issues to discuss how that Committee might be set up? Will she recognise that, as human rights are now at the forefront of the Government's foreign policy, it is quite difficult for the Foreign Affairs Committee to deal with human rights issues around the world as well as British foreign policy interests? Does she agree that we would be better off if we did what many other Parliaments do and had a separate, dedicated human rights committee that can take up and investigate human rights issues in the world and try to bring them to the attention of the British Parliament and, obviously, the Government?

I think that my hon. Friend anticipates some of the discussions that will take place in Committee on the Human Rights Bill. I am always available to meet hon. Members who wish to speak to me about these issues, but we should judge the timing of any such meeting by what is said in Committee on the Human Rights Bill.

I thank the President of the Council for her answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and join in pursuing his request. Is she as convinced as I am that it would do a great service to the House and to Parliament if we were seen to use the best experiences of other Parliaments to set up a body, potentially involving Members from both Houses, to examine human rights matters in this country and abroad? If the right hon. Lady is willing to come to a view after the Human Rights Bill has left Committee, that would be hugely welcome and could lead to a long overdue reform of the processes of this place.

I said in my original reply that the White Paper states that we favour the establishment of a parliamentary Committee. However, we should not prejudge what form it might take or whether it might be a Joint Committee but should wait until the Human Rights Bill has left Committee. Those matters are all aspects of the discussion that we shall take into account, and, of course, we shall consult widely.

What proposals she has to review the procedure for consideration of private Members' Bills. [31439]

I have no current plans to do so.

In the interests of modernisation, which I know she shares, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of timetabling private Members' Bills so that all stages of Bills that have the overwhelming support of hon. Members, such as that promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), have an opportunity to be considered and voted upon, and a small number of hon. Members do not have an opportunity to filibuster them out of existence?

I share my hon. Friend's deep disappointment at the antics of Conservative Members on Friday. He knows that the time that is available for private Members' Bills is established by the House. If the Government sought to change the rules, there would be a great deal of interest in the House. For example, if we changed the rules for one Bill, there would be legitimate arguments by the promoters and sponsors of others that they had been treated unfairly. In its first report, the Modernisation Committee said that it may wish to give attention to how private Members' Bills are treated.

As the Government have made it clear that hunting with hounds is not an issue that will be dealt with by public legislation, is it not an insult to democracy for them to make no time available for further consideration of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, particularly bearing in mind that only one weekday is needed? Rather than engaging in political exchanges, does the right hon. Lady appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel strongly about this issue believe that they have been sold down the river, basically because assurances were given in writing by people who now serve as Ministers?

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that one day is still available for the Bill and that, if matters were as simple as he suggests, the Bill would make further progress this Friday. Ministers' assurances that there would be a free vote on the issue have been upheld—Labour Members have had a free vote—but there would be great problems in giving extra time at this stage and adverse consequences for the passage of the Government's business, which must take priority.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange a seminar for Back Benchers in which she can explain that Back Benchers' ability to hold up legislation or to progress it is one of their last remaining powers and that those who talk about timetabling Bills do Back Benchers, irrespective of their party and certainly of the rubbish that goes on, a great disservice? Under the guise of modernisation, Back Benchers have already lost the power to vote on a number of Back-Bench issues, and have gained in return Adjournment debates that give them no power.

The changes have helped many Back Benchers to have important Adjournment debates on Wednesday mornings, and that provision is widely appreciated by the House; but my hon. Friend is right to point out that private Members' Bills depend on the overall will of the House. It would be difficult to reach agreement that there should be the type of timetabling that has been suggested. If I were to organise a seminar on these matters, I would ensure that she was one of the speakers.

I am sure that the President of the Council shares the view that a majority of hon. Members are disenchanted with what happened last Friday and that a majority of people in the country are disappointed with the way in which Tories and others behaved. Will she consider proposing that the House should sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings to give the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill a fair chance of succeeding in all aspects of its passage through the House and that that should set a precedent for other private Members' Bills that might be similarly affected by the bizarre behaviour of hon. Members who want to frustrate democratic processes in the House?

I am aware that there is considerable concern about the Bill both inside and outside the House. I was one of the people who stayed here last Friday to vote for the Bill and I shall do so again this Friday. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, were the Government to seek to change the rules for one Bill, promoters and sponsors of other Bills would have legitimate objections. We have to deal with these matters fairly. As I have said, it is one of the topics to which the Modernisation Committee may wish to turn its attention in the not too distant future.

What proposals she has to reform the parliamentary year; and if she will make a statement. [31441]

The Modernisation Committee will consider the matter shortly, now that it has completed its work on the two reports that were published this morning: one on conduct in the Chamber, including recommendations on short speeches, precedence for Privy Councillors and the use of top hats; the other on the carry-over of Bills. I commend both reports to the House.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I congratulate her on her reports. Am I right in thinking that, with Easter barely a month away, we still do not know if or when there will be an Easter recess, let alone a Whitsun or summer recess? Does she accept that many hon. Members would gladly settle for shorter recesses if they were more predictable, so that we could plan our lives?

I did indicate, in the first week the House sat in January, the likely dates of the Easter recess. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will appreciate that, with the business ahead of us and the fact that we sometimes have to wait for Committees to finish or for Bills to come back from the House of Lords, it is difficult to anticipate the details of business a long time in advance. However, we are now giving two weeks' notice of business wherever possible and an early indication—even if it is sometimes in general terms—of other major events and when recesses are likely to be.

I thank the right hon. Lady for the leadership she has given to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. Does she accept that the agreement on the carry over—and it has to be with agreement that Bills are carried over—will make it easier to define a parliamentary year? While I do not necessarily associate myself with everything the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) said, does the right hon. Lady accept that there would be a widespread welcome for a more structured parliamentary year?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It will be for the convenience of the House if we experiment with the carry-over procedure, and I believe that we will be able to make progress on that. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, if we manage to use that procedure successfully, it may be possible to anticipate, with greater certainty, the likely pace of the parliamentary year and when the recesses might occur.