We now come to written question No. 8.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Lord Haskins will make his report on rural recovery in Cumbria; and if she will make a statement. [9471]

First, let me apologise. I hope not to take up too much of the House's time, but, in view of the many strictures about announcements being made outside the House rather than inside, I thought it right to try to make it known to the House that the Government welcome the report by Lord Haskins that was published this morning. We are grateful to Lord Haskins for his work in consulting stakeholders in Cumbria and other areas affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and for producing a lucid and thoughtful report. We shall respond to all his recommendations shortly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking the question. I also thank the Secretary of State for requesting it.

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the problems experienced in Cumbria, which he and many other Members representing the county have frequently drawn to the House's attention. I also accept that he is a little disappointed that I cannot provide at once the full sum identified by Lord Haskins—although I think that he will find that Lord Haskins, along with others, will feel that this is very much a step in the right direction.

This is a confused and innovative way of making an announcement to the House. I understand that no copies of the Haskins report are available in the Vote Office, although copies were made available to the media before DEFRA questions. I have managed to obtain a copy by dint of ingenuity, but it is not possible to ask questions and read at the same time. This is not an easy situation for any Member. If the Haskins report is as important as the Government have made out, surely it merited a full and proper statement to the House rather than the strange procedure that is taking place. We will, of curse, study the report with great care.

I welcome all members of the Opposition Front-Bench team to their new responsibilities, which I should have done previously. I apologise to them.

I verb much welcome the report, which has come not a moment too soon. I am aware that it concentrates on Cumbria, but many other parts of the— [Interruption.]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.

The report relates to other parts of the country, even though Cumbria was apparently the worst affected. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that some dates by which businesses must appeal for help can be extended, given that certain ones have passed? Will she also consider ways in which her ministerial team can go out and talk to farmers about how to move towards a more sustainable food policy?

On my hon. Friend's last point, not only my team but the policy commission are engaged in that debate. I understand his points about businesses. One aspect that has led us to respond so speedily to the publication of the report is an understanding of the number of businesses that are in the queue, so to speak, and that have been affected by the existing position.

Cumbria has been through a horrendous nine months and I am afraid that the Government's reaction today is yet another example of too little, too late. May I press the Secretary of State specifically on Lord Haskins' recommendation that the extension of the amnesty for business rate and VAT payments should run to April next year? Will she have urgent discussions with the Treasury on that recommendation? If those bills are presented in the next few months, a large number of businesses will go bankrupt.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct and, naturally, I accept that the situation in Cumbria has been terrible. Members throughout the House recognise that. I take on board his further points about the extension of the amnesty. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and I have been discussing and will continue to discuss these issues. I take this opportunity to tell the House that the rural taskforce report, on which my right hon. Friend has been engaged, will also be published later this afternoon and made available in the House.

We have just heard that the total contribution of agriculture to our GDP is worth £5 billion. Is the Secretary of State aware that The Economist calculates that cannabis dealing in the United Kingdom is worth more than £1 billion? Has Lord Haskins considered the enormous contribution that could be made by legalising cannabis and producing the crop in the United Kingdom, which would be perfectly possible—

Order. That is far too wide of the question.

I welcome any circumstance that requires Ministers to make a statement about publications that have been issued outside. It is unfortunate, however, that it was not possible to have a full statement.

With respect, the Government have tried, without unduly disrupting business, to ensure that the announcement of our reaction to the report has been made in the House. The breakdown and the justification for it are issues that we can consider at greater length. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the matter, it has been heard by the Leader of the House. Indeed, the rural taskforce report looks more widely and more at the medium and longer term. Nothing that I have said today precludes consideration of what might be the right steps to take in the medium and longer term. The House and the Government will return to those issues over time.

I welcome the report and the money that is being provided. Will the Secretary of State ensure that local people are brought into discussions on the implementation of the report? We want to make sure that the new money is spent as efficiently as possible because the people of Cumbria have truly suffered over the past nine months.

I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs advises me that one of the key recommendations in the rural taskforce report as he sees it concerns teamwork, and clearly that involves local people. It is right to give careful consideration to the best, most effective use of the money. It is not for me to define Lord Haskins' terms for him, but I suspect that is what he meant when he talked about businesses that deserve money.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that Lord Haskins is not the most popular man with farmers? He is not a particularly successful farmer and his company certainly is not friendly to the farming industry. Does it come well from a man such as Lord Haskins to hector livestock farmers who work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year? Does she further accept that the subsidies mentioned by Members during Question Time today go to the consumer, not the farmer? Unless farmers are there, the great land that we represent and which people take for granted will not be maintained. Farmers must produce from their land to maintain it for the benefit of the country.

The hon. Gentleman will have been in the Chamber and heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) indicating that we all recognise not only the direct contribution that agriculture and farming make to the economy, but their contribution to the rural landscape, which is a key issue for tourism.

The present animal markets are wasteful, inefficient, cruel to animals and accelerate the spread of animal diseases. During this crisis some farmers have sold their animals via video links, and Lord Haskins rightly says that the best way of conducting such sales is via the internet, which not only avoids suffering for animals, as they do not have to travel so far, but is far cheaper. Most of all, however, such a system would avoid the spread of disease, as animals do not come into contact with each other. Is not that recommendation, like the rest of the report, far-sighted? Lord Haskins rightly says that aquaculture, bio-farming and fuel farming are more prosperous and employ more people than traditional agriculture. They could also create an industry that has a far better future, without subsidies.

People may or may not like what Lord Haskins has to say, but it is generally recognised that he is always a thoughtful and stimulating contributor to debate. My hon. Friend has drawn on some of the ideas that are in the public domain and being discussed. They are also very much ideas that we hope that the policy commission will consider and take into account when it makes its own recommendations.

I recognise the very special impact that foot and mouth had on Cumbria, but other parts of the country suffered as well. People in those areas will look carefully at the conclusions of Lord Haskins' report and note the additional resources going to Cumbria. Does the right hon. Lady have any plans to apply those lessons, and further resources, to other parts of the country?

I should make it plain that it is not the intention that all that money will go to Cumbria. Clearly, however, the flavour of what Lord Haskins says is that many of the problems have been more severe there. Of course the Government recognise that the problems are more widespread.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, with 134 cases in North Yorkshire, many of which have been in its two national parks, the impact or our sub-regional rural economy—particularly in my constituency in the Esk valley—was much the same as the impact in Cumbria. Will she confirm that North Yorkshire will share in substantial support to deal with that impact? Will the national park authorities, with their expertise, be used to tackle the problems of overstocking, especially in the sheep sector, that face many of my constituents?

We are listening to the views and input of the various authorities on the future direction of policy. We shall also examine the distribution of the money. I am sure that not everyone will be satisfied, and that everyone will think that there should be more for their area, but I hope that people will recognise that it is a contribution.

Those of us who have not had access to the papers rather assumed that the £24 million that the right hon. Lady has announced was specifically targeted on Cumbria. If that is not so, will she make it clear? At the beginning of this debate, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly raised the essential issue of the quantum of compensation. Have we heard her last word on that subject? Can we tempt her to keep open the possibility of increasing the sum it demands increase in other parts of the United Kingdom" Specifically, what new money will be made available in south-east and south-west Scotland as a result of her announcement today?

I accept that it is not easy for hon. Members to follow the precise nuances of announcements. As I said, however, the money is indeed for Cumbria and for other areas; the hon. Gentleman is right about that. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the lion's share of the money will go to Cumbria, for all the reasons that hon. Members understand and have identified. I also accept that there will be continuing concerns in other areas, and that tip, Government will come under continuing pressure to see whether it is possible, in our difficult circumstances, to do more.

May we please have the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks—and not only that; knowing how keen his colleagues always are to get away from this place as much as possible, I suspect that they, in particular, will be grateful for the announcement of the Christmas recess.

"we will have repeated debates on the issue of terrorism … Whenever appropriate, we will return to it"— [Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 975.]

"I hope to see the debate reinstated at an appropriate time when the Home Office can appropriately find priority for it." — [Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 975.]

I welcome the clear indication from the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Back Benchers that they will be happy to be here at Christmas. The recess that I announced is clearly subject to the progress of business, but I take note of the fact that Conservative Members are willing to be here at Christmas should that be required.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Minister for Industry and Energy will make a statement about his predecessor's decision on an equal pay claim for all the canteen workers in the coalfields? Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 2,500 of those workers have not qualified for the money? Will he draw that fact to the attention of the Chancellor of Exchequer and explain to him that we need extra money for all the canteen workers who were left out of the agreement and who must be paid? In my area, those who belonged to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers were paid, while those at Bolsover colliery who stayed loyal to the National Union of Mineworkers during the pit strike were left off the list. That state of affairs has been repeated across all the coalfields and in many constituencies represented by Labour Members. We want a statement or, better still, payment pretty sharp.

My hon. Friend states his case with his characteristic robustness. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It is long overdue that the events of that period were put behind us. Everyone should be treated on an equal and fair basis.

May I reinforce the plea that my colleagues have just made for a debate on the rural crisis? Many Members on both sides of the House think that such a debate is long overdue.

I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the pressure for a debate on the countryside. I hope that we will be able to find time for it at an appropriate moment.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the wholesale redundancies, outsourcing and sell-offs currently being planned by Consignia, which could jeopardise its ability to meet its universal service obligations, destroy the morale of employee: and plunge this country's postal services into a terrible mess. In view of that, may we have an early debate on the future of the Post Office?

I am very much aware of the position to which my hon. Friend draws my attention, and I fully sympathise with the concerns arising from the announcement. My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement is only the start of a process of consultation and discussion, and I am sure that the House will have opportunities to ventilate the concerns of individual Members as that proceeds. These are, of course, matters for the company, not the Government, and I would not wish to suggest that Ministers will interfere in the way in which the company addresses the important task of ensuring that the Post Office remains in profit.

Will the Leader of the House consider the case for a debate on Lord Haskins' other report, published yesterday, the annual report of the better regulation taskforce? Does he accept Lord Haskins's conclusion that the present system of regulation is "excessively centralised"

"inherently autocratic, inflexible and remote"?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have expressed concern about the speed that is required in deregulation, which is why, after all, we passed the reform Act in the previous Session. I am pleased to say that since we did so, no fewer than 50 different areas have come within the scope of the Act and are being acted on as we speak. We will continue to make all due progress.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the gas explosion in my constituency last December, which killed two constituents, Alvin and Shirley Sykes, as they slept. The explosion was subject to an immediate investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, but 10 months later we are still waiting for the report to be published, and there is no evidence that publication is imminent. Will my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to the people of Batley, not least the Sykes family, who need to put that dreadful experience behind them, by arranging an immediate and urgent statement to the House about the full circumstances of the explosion and an explanation of why we are being denied the report?

My hon. Friend raises an issue that is important to his constituency, and particularly to the family of the constituents whom he named He makes his point with great dignity and force. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive and encourage it to release the report as quickly as possible.

The Government have made it clear that over the next few weeks the House will deal with a substantial volume of additional legislation on terrorism, much of which will be taken on the Floor. Does he agree that if the House is to perform its scrutiny role adequately, this necessarily means that some of the other items in what was already an ambitious programme will have to be dropped?

I do not anticipate a problem with timetabling up to the next recess, which I have announced. As for the future, we will review the matter when we get there. Let us be clear: there has been a change, not only in our security environment, but in international affairs. Both the House and the Government would be subject to immense criticism if we were to say that we do not have the flexibility to respond, to introduce and scrutinise legislation and to pass it with the expedition required for emergency legislation. I look forward to the co-operation of all quarters of the House in achieving that objective.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the looming crisis in the airline industry, brought about as a direct result of actions on 11 September? He will be aware that the American Government and other European Governments are giving strong support to their national airlines. It is a fiercely competitive industry and global market. The debate will also allow the Government to address the central problems that face the industry—the difficulty of insurance, the increased costs for extra security at airports and the provision of compensation for when the planes were grounded.

And also about the absurdity of terminal 5, which should be stopped.

I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), although I fear that that is not in order.

The Leader of the House will know from his former incarnation that problems arise if countries do things in different ways. Will it be possible before the next debate on terrorism for the Foreign Secretary to discover how far those who have joined in the coalition are working to defeat international terrorism? Belgium is not handing over information to the Americans and someone in the Republic of Ireland keeps his own army council, with illegally held weapons, against the constitution.

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he and his hon. Friends might want to reiterate in the full-day debate that I have announced for two weeks hence. One reason why we held the Justice and Home Affairs Council immediately after 11 September and are anxious to introduce emergency legislation to implement our decisions is to ensure that all European Union member states work together with everyone else to ensure that we crack down on terrorism and co-operate with each other to bring to justice those who are guilty of terrorism.

More than 100 Labour Members and some Opposition Members have demonstrated their unease about the Wakeham proposals by signing early-day motion 226:

I have noted the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers and see that she tabled it. I am happy to say that there will be a consultation document before legislation is introduced. We gave that commitment in the Queen's Speech and it is how we will proceed.

The Leader of the House said that there has been an obvious change in the domestic security environment. May we have a statement next week on civil defence? There seem to be some mixed messages from Ministers, including the Prime Minister. When asked specific questions in television interviews, they respond that they do not want to create alarm, which is understandable, and we received some information in the margins of Health questions earlier this week, but the approach is in stark contrast to the attitude to public information in the United States. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on that issue? We are receiving questions in our mailbag and I have some questions that I should like to ask. The House deserves a statement and an opportunity to question Ministers without revealing too much that would undermine security.

There will be an opportunity to question Ministers at the Department of Health. In fairness to the Government, we should recall that we began on Monday with a statement from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which dwelt on the internal security situation in Britain.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the future of the United Kingdom hospice movement, which is under severe financial pressure? Sue Ryder Care expects to close four of its hospices throughout the country, including one at Staunton Harold hall in my constituency, about which a 20,000-signature petition was presented to No. 10 Downing street just last week. Is not the hospice movement, with the day, respite and terminal illness care that it offers and the dignity that it gives so many of our citizens in their final days, of sufficient importance for finance to be more heavily sourced from the national health service and not dependent on the vicissitudes of voluntary contributions?

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Having previously held the health portfolio in opposition, I fully understand and greatly value the work of the hospice movement, which can provide particularly sensitive care at a very difficult time for both patients and relatives, who immensely appreciate its services. This Government certainly want the hospice movement to prosper, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health.

May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the conduct of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, particularly relating to the fishing industry? In the Shetland part of my constituency, the fishing industry accounts for 20 to 25 per cent. of our economy. My constituents would consider a system that allows for less than two minutes' questioning of Ministers in two weeks next to useless. I therefore ask whether time will be found for a statement or a proper debate on the crisis of stock levels in the North sea and the need, highlighted in a paper produced today by the World Wildlife Fund, for money to be provided by the Treasury for short to medium-term aid for the fishing industry and the white fish fleet in particular.

I note that the hon. Gentleman has seconded the suggestion made from the Liberal Democrat Benches by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and I fully understand and am aware of the importance of the fishing industry to his constituency. I am delighted that this occasion has given me the opportunity to put that on the record in the way in which Question Time did not.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of demerger plans concerning mmo₂, which is part of BT. I should register an interest as an ex-BT employee of 30 years, a small shareholder in the company and a member of Connect, the management and professionals union. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that, if carried, the proposals could damage not only BT but the UK's communications infrastructure. Is he aware that the trade unions representing BT's employees are firmly against any demerger on the grounds not only of possible job losses but of national interest? Will he arrange a debate in which we can discuss what might happen if the demerger goes ahead?

I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I am aware of the issue and I fully understand the anxiety to which it has given rise. The matter is essentially for BT as a company, but I hope that, in taking it forward, it will fully consult and listen to is employees and consider carefully whether the division of debt in the demerger is fair to both parts.

The Leader of the House may be aware that in early September the Strategic Rail Authority presented to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions an analysis of Central Railway's proposal to build a freight line from the channel tunnel to the north-west. As the Leader of the House may be aware, the proposal has caused considerable anxiety across many parts of south-east England, so I should be grateful if he would invite the Secretary of State to attend the House at the earliest possible date to make a statement on the proposals and their viability.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs no further encouragement from me to appear in the House next week—he will be involved in Question Time and a debate next Tuesday, and I am sure that that will furnish the hon. Gentleman with adequate opportunity to air his concerns.

Since 11 September, all hon. Members have welcomed the opportunities that way have had to discuss, in a very sombre and respectful way, the consequences of international terrorism, and we welcome the further opportunities to do so that have been announced, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing debate outside the House about the long-term consequences of the events of 11 September? We may be dismayed that such action has to be taken now, but beyond the fight in Afghanistan, there is a war against poverty and so on in the wider world. We may also be dismayed by a recent report, which we may have all received, from the Jubilee Plus campaign about the effect of poverty in the heavily indebted poor countries. That also needs to be debated, and perhaps a whole day should be set aside to debate that wider context.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the events of 11 September will have long-lived and wide repercussions, and I share with him the hope that, as a consequence, there will be a greater international consensus on bearing down on word poverty, which is, of course, one of the breeding grounds of the fanaticism that can produce terrorism. This Government have a very good record on taking the initiative in the G8 and elsewhere on relieving the debt of the poorest countries. We shall continue to provide that leadership, and I hope that we can now build a bigger alliance to lift the burden of debt from those countries that sometimes find that they pay more in interest on debt than they spend on their schools and hospitals.

Will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions can tell the House, either in the debate next week or in an early statement, how much public money will be made available to the new Railtrack, when decisions will be made about investment projects that have been put on ice by Railtrack's going into administration and when we will know the details of the successor company? In my constituency, we were well advanced with plans for a new station, but we now have no idea where Railtrack is coming from, who is running it, how much money it has and whether it can get on with modernising the railways. We will need answers from the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the time will not be wasted next week.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on the right hon. Gentleman's observations and consider what weight he should attach to them in his speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also favour us with a speech on Tuesday and explain how, while sitting in the Cabinet that privatised the railway industry, he helped to devise the system of railway administration. The system was thought up by that Cabinet and is part of the Railways Act 1993, so perhaps he could share with is the answers that Conservative Members had in mind in 1993.

Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to hold an urgent debate on encouraging the recruitment and retention of general practitioners? Has he had a chance to study the two surveys published yesterday? Is he aware of the growing shortage of GPs across the country, especially in east Kent? Yesterday, the prospect arose of one large practice in my constituency shedding 500 patients from its roll. That is driving us into a dangerous position, so will he seriously consider holding a debate on those important matters?

My hon. Friend makes his point about the situation in his constituency, and I understand why he is concerned. On the broader, national picture, I have to tell him that there are now more GPs than ever before and that the survey to which he refers discovered that the clear majority of those GPs believe that health care to their patients has improved under this Government.

If not next week, then at an early date, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on a matter that is assuming some urgency—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the new European security and defence project? Given the need for the ESDP closely to ally its work with NATO, does he agree that it would be far better if the scrutiny at European level were conducted by a reconstituted Assembly of the Western European Union rather than by the European Parliament or the European Union, because some members of the EU are not members of NATO and some members of NATO are not members of the EU?

I would suggest that, in the light of the events of 11 September, we should try to make every possible progress on European security to make sure, for example, that we can guarantee stability in our own continent, especially in south-east Europe and the Balkans, so that we never again see in Europe the emergence of the kind of pressures that gave rise to the attack on the World Trade Centre. Of course, it is important that European security and defence policy is democratically accountable, but I strongly suggest—the Government have maintained this position since the start of the process—that democratic accountability should be to the national Parliaments, including this one.

Does the Leader of the House recall that the Government published their consultation paper on a national strategy for sexual health, including HIV, in July? Having waited two years for that paper, it was disappointing that it was published in the recess, which meant that there was no possibility of a statement or debate. A lot of people are interested in the issues raised by the paper. Will he see if time can he found for a debate, if not immediately, then before the consultation period ends?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question and know of his own interest through the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. I am aware of the concern about the time taken to produce the report; indeed, it was raised with me in business questions before the recess. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is indulgent of the fact that the report was published, albeit in the recess. It is important that we do not propose that all Government work be suspended during the recess, and it is vital that the Government are held to account for any major statement. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate; I cannot give any promises, but I shall certainly take it on board, along with the many other requests that I receive.

Ahead of next Tuesday's debate, if we are going to restore confidence in public and political life, is it not essential that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions comes to the Dispatch Box and announces that he has at last sacked his special adviser, which is what the overwhelming majority of people in the country expect? Also, because of the delay in sacking, the Secretary of State should now say that he is considering his own position.

There is absolutely nothing new left to say about the case of Jo Moore and the right hon. Gentleman has not found anything. The issue is not whether or not Jo Moore made a mistake; she herself said that she made a terrible error of judgment. The issue is whether someone's career and livelihood should be ended because of a single mistake. That may be how Conservative Members treat their staff, but it is certainly not how they behaved when they were Ministers. Had they resigned after making one mistake, they would not have lasted 18 days, never mind 18 years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, 12 months on from the devastating floods of last autumn, it is appropriate to have a debate to examine their impact and consider where we are now as a result and what we have been able to achieve? For instance, 300 homes in my constituency were devastated at Stockbridge. If we had a debate, one of the many things that I would like to raise is the fact that the Environment Agency will not start work to improve flood defences on the River Aire at Stockbridge until next summer. Meanwhile, many of my constituents are extremely worried every time that there is heavy rain. In addition, as a result of the laggardly behaviour of one or two insurance firms, several of my constituents have still not been able to move back into their homes 12 months on.

I am fully aware of the seriousness of the issue, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, and know that my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are following the matter closely. As for a debate, I have now accumulated requests for a full week of debates, and I must warn the House that I cannot please everybody.

Could the Leader of the House provide the House with an opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to legislate against religious hatred so that Opposition Members and, perhaps, Government Members can inquire how they are going to do so without a definition of religion in the Bill?

With Mr. Bean's stand-in.

I am not quite sure how Hansard will interpret my hon. Friend's comment.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that on Monday the Home Secretary announced that he would bring forward measures to increase security at airports, and yet, since then, there has been an exposé in the media showing that companies such as Securicor have been allowing staff with no security clearance to work in high-risk areas. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State fog Transport, Local Government and the Regions to bring those powers forward urgently to ensure that companies that exploit loopholes in the existing regulations should be prevented from doing so immediately, or, failing that, should not be allowed to operate at the airport itself?

I saw the reports and made inquiries. There is a genuine dilemma here. The events of 11 September have required heightened security, not just at airports but at many other sites in the UK. It is impossible to provide that additional security without an increase in staff, and it is not possible necessarily to complete the screening of all members of staff before they commence work. The present arrangements make that permissible, provided that the screening proceeds as quickly as possible. The choice facing some of the installations is whether to have any security at all or security with those who may not have been fully screened. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend: we must make all haste and that is why we seek to introduce an emergency Bill with, we hope, expedited procedures.

Would the Leader of the House be agreeable to a full debate on the international humanitarian aid effort in Afghanistan, and, if so, could that debate be preceded by a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development so that she can inform the House of her recent visits?

As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend is currently in Pakistan pursuing that very issue. The Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet have repeatedly stressed that the humanitarian effort is receiving the same priority and the same resources necessary for the job as the military effort. We will have an opportunity to debate the matter in a fortnight's time and we shall consider nearer the time who is most appropriate to speak for the Government.

It is an extremely long time since we debated the work of the Child Support Agency, changes to which will be made next year. The CSA is powerful: it overrides medical evidence and will not allow appeals against its decisions. We should once again be considering the work of the CSA, which impacts on many people's lives. Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate on the CSA?

I will happily draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As for a debate, I can only invite my hon. Friend to join the queue, in which there are already five in front of him today.

Reports in The Times today say that the so-called secret plans to split Railtrack plc into financial and operating arms have been described as unworkable by potential investors. In view of that and the fact that many thousands of ordinary people who are shareholders in the company are still totally in the dark about their position, will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier view about the use of the Opposition day next Tuesday? That might properly be occupied by a consideration of ministerial conduct and the role of special advisers and not give a sharp focus on Railtrack. If the right hon. Gentleman's statement about commitment to the railways is to become reality, we need to probe the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions thoroughly and carefully in the light of those reports. Can we have a special debate on the subject?

It is not for me to devise the Opposition motion, nor do I imagine it would be welcome were I to do so. [Interruption.] I am grateful for that confirmation of my view on the matter. It is open to all Members of the House within the rules of order to take advantage of that debate to explore the issues that they regard as most germane. For many of my colleagues, one of those issues will undoubtedly be how Railtrack a company on the brink of bankruptcy, nevertheless in the course of the past 12 months has paid hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders, which could have been there for the safety of the travelling public.

We heard earlier about the calamitous consequences of 11 September for the airline industry. My question is about aerospace. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce, which is a major employer in my constituency, is expected to announce between 3,000 and 4,000 job cuts? Does he agree that now is not the time for a high-tech company to make panic cuts? Will he invite the secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House tomorrow and make an urgent statement about the unfolding crisis in the airline and aerospace industries?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is following these matters with great care and great energy. I fully understand the importance of the impending announcement to the constituents of my hon. Friend and I also understand how important it is that, because of a short-term emergency, we do not disperse skilled teams that work together. I hope that we can all work together so that in the long term there will be healthy airline and aerospace industries in the United K Kingdom.

May I support the call for a debate on the airline and at aerospace industries in the crisis resulting from the attacks in 11 September? In Northern Ireland, we know that Shorts in particular proposes to lay off thousands of workers as a result of the crisis. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 261.

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on behalf of his constituents who are employed at Shorts. In the long run, we must face the fact that the only way we can recover both the viability of the airline industry and the order book of the aerospace industry is by getting the public back travelling by air. That is why it is so important that we address our minds to what we can do to improve aviation security still further, to provide that confidence to the travelling public, and that is why it is important that the House deals urgently and sympathetically with the Bill that we have introduced, to ensure that we carry it through expeditiously.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when considering alternative methods of choosing Select Committee members, priority should be given to two criteria? First, any system should be independent of Government, and secondly, it should be transparent and open. Does he also agree that unless all the names of hon. Members who are applying for membership of Select Committees are published, neither the House nor the public can be confident that the most appropriate hon. Members have been selected?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the criterion that we must meet is that the body which puts names before the House is independent of party influence and transparent in its accountability. That is what the Modernisation Committee will seek to achieve. I am not sure to what extent it would be practical to publish the names of all those applying for membership of Select Committees, or whether such a system applies in the case of all the parties in the House. However, I can share with my hon. Friend our commitment that we will meet his standards of independence and transparency.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a DEFRA Minister to come to the House at an early date to make a statement about the serious delays in the issuing of movement licences under the new animal movement licensing scheme? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the need for farmers to move livestock before the winter. It is therefore important that the House knows what measures DEFRA intends to put in place to ensure that the system runs much more smoothly, in order to allow those much needed movements to take place.

My colleagues from DEFRA left the Chamber less than an hour ago and I am not sure how willing they would be to come back straight away. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the importance of the autumn movements. I have already discussed it with her, but shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to her attention.

May we have a debate, or be guaranteed an early statement, on the serious situation in Northern Ireland? There are new possibilities in connection with decommissioning, given the general position on terrorism, and there is the problem of the resignation by Ulster Unionists from the Executive. Discussion of those matters should not simply be tacked on to general debates about the wider terrorist situation because the issues are important in their own right and hon. Members should have a chance to debate them.

My hon. Friend is assiduous in raising this issue, and I imagine that he will have opportunities to ventilate his concerns in the future. I share his hope that the current international climate and the additional impetus that has been given to finding a resolution to areas of conflict that breed terrorism may bear fruit in the case of Northern Ireland as well. That is certainly what the Government are working for.

Could we have a statement on the guidelines given to special advisers? I am thinking in particular of the concern reported in the press today and previously about civil servants who have been instructed by special advisers to perform political acts. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm a report on the BBC this morning that only Jonathan Powell and the Prime Minister's official spokesman have been authorised to give any instructions at any time to civil servants?

I can happily confirm to the House that there is no provision for special advisers, or indeed anybody else, to instruct civil servants "to perform political acts". There are clear codes for both special advisers and civil servants, and both professions stick within those codes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a slight delay in the general availability of the Auld report since its stated publication date, but that it should be widely available from today? Given that the report proposes root-and-branch reforms to our criminal court system, the Government have rightly announced a period of public consultation until the end of next January. Can my right hon. Friend find time during the consultation period for this Chamber to debate those proposals?

Hear, hear.

I see that my hon. Friend's point has resonance in other parts of the House. The Auld report is an important, fundamental review of the court system and offers us a substantial improvement to our criminal justice system. It should be dealt with, at all stages, with the importance that it deserves.

Is the Leader of the House aware that in the continuing dispute at Friction Dynamex in my constituency the workers have been out for the past five or six months and their only reward so far has been dismissal? May we have a statement from the DTI on the efforts that it has made to resolve that long-running dispute?

I am not familiar with the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I shall draw it to the attention of my DTI colleague and invite him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

The Leader of the House has already heard several pleas for a debate on the airline and aviation industry. Given that the board of Rolls-Royce is presently meeting and intends to make a statement after the stock market has closed this evening about the future prospects of the company; given the events of 11 September; and given the need to retain high-quality technical skills in Hucknall, the east midlands and across the country, may we have an early opportunity to discuss the future of that important sector?

My hon. Friend is correct in that a number of hon. Members have raised that theme in the past hour, and my colleagues and I will obviously need to reflect upon it. As I said earlier, I share those concerns. We must ensure that we do not lose long-term skills because of short-term pressures.

May I add my voice to those calling for a full debate in Government time on the recovery of rural businesses? I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that farming businesses are by far the most numerous such businesses. I should like the debate to cover two aspects. The first is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the confusion and contradictory advice given by DEFRA about the issuing of livestock licences in the run-up to winter and the distress that that causes to the livestock. The second is the fact that 117 premises were affected by foot and mouth in North Yorkshire but so far only five contracts have been signed to cleanse them, so restocking cannot begin this side of Christmas.

The hon. Lady has placed on record the extent of the problem in her constituency. As I said, I am not unsympathetic to the case for a debate on the countryside, but I hope that such a debate would be broad and enable us to deal with the rural economy, other aspects of public service in the countryside and the way forward, and not only the crisis of the past few months.

May I associate myself entirely with the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House about the postponement of the debate on drug policy that had been scheduled for this Friday? Will my right hon. Friend find time to read the British crime survey, which was published last month? He will find that not only has our drugs tsar come and gone without making a jot of difference, but our Government have not got a snowball's chance in hell of meeting their targets on reduction of crime. Clearly, the current policy is not working and we need to revise it. May we have an urgent debate?

I rather anticipated that my hon. Friend would raise that subject and I commend him for the vigour with which he repeatedly does so. He would not expect me to assent to every proposition that he advances, but, as I said, we did have a commitment to a debate on drugs, it remains a commitment and, at an appropriate time, we will try to reschedule the deferred debate that was due this Friday.

Mr. McWalter.

For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I feared that you were about to call time.

I think that we have just heard a headline in the Hemel Hempstead newspapers. I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed earlier this week in his speech on public services the importance of bringing all those services up to national standards. Indeed, he outlined how we intend to go about that task in the health service.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will agree that the use of anthrax against the elected representatives of the United States constitutes an attack on the heart of democracy. Do you agree that this House, which is at the centre of our democracy and is widely respected here, in the United States and abroad, should send a message through you to your opposite number in the United States to offer our support at this difficult time? I remind you that it is only 60 years since this House had to be temporarily closed. Afterwards, democracy not only returned but went from strength to strength around the world. I suspect that a suitably worded message of support from you would be very well received in the United States at this difficult time.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I shall certainly send such a message. It may be helpful for the House to know that, after the terrible events of 11 September, I wrote to Speaker Hastert and Mayor Giuliani. I explained the solidarity that Members of this House feel with their American colleagues and the close bond between this House and democratic institutions in the United States. I have noted that Ambassador Farish has been present in the House to hear our debates. I have invited him to Speaker's House, where he will have an opportunity to meet hon. Members from all parts of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and some clarification. Earlier this afternoon the mechanism was used of a written question being extended beyond Question Time to enable us to have a statement from a Minister. My colleagues and I very much welcome that despite the confusion over the lack of information. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for using this mechanism on a number of occasions recently because it enables the House to get a statement from a Minister very rapidly. However, there are two major problems on which I seek your guidance, if not now, then on some future occasion.

I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and come back to the House on the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You often advise hon. Members and Ministers to give rapid or at least brief answers. Today we only got as far as Question 10, and, without mentioning any names, you may be aware that a particular Minister gave excessively long answers. I wonder whether you could write a gentle note or, wherever you meet Ministers from time to time, have a gentle word with particular Ministers. I realise that this is becoming a rather long and lengthy point of order; nevertheless long, lengthy answers, although they may be helpful, prevent Back Benchers from asking questions.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should try to get through the Order Paper, but to get further down the Order Paper I need the co-operation of the House. I would not single out Ministers who give lengthy replies as some Back Benchers ask very lengthy questions. In my opinion, the short, sharp question often gets a short, sharp reply, but I am happy to put it on record that I am very keen to get down the Order Paper.