Object.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the bombings in Bali, Indonesia.

Two bombs went off near the Sari club in Kuta, Bali, just after 11 pm Indonesian time on the night of 12 October. At the same time, a bomb exploded in Denpasar, capital of Bali, near the United States consulate, and another at the Philippines consulate in Sulawesi. The Sari club was packed with people, mainly young, enjoying themselves on a Saturday night. The attacks appear to have been timed deliberately to cause the maximum possible injury and loss of life.

First, I would like to express my deep sympathies and condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in this appalling terrorist outrage. The final toll of the dead and injured is unlikely to be confirmed for several weeks, but as of this morning more than 180 people are confirmed dead, with hundreds more injured. Many of those who died were young Australians. Up to 30 British people may have died: nine Britons are confirmed dead, with a further eight bodies yet to be identified and 13 people still missing. Eight have been medically evacuated from Bali; many more received hospital treatment at the scene. We are providing assistance, as we did after 11 September, to the relatives of British victims. That will enable those who wish to travel to Bali to do so, and we will provide help and support to them while they are there.

This was an act of pure wickedness—horrific and brutal attacks that have left hundreds of families here and all around the world in shock and grieving. Last night, the United Nations Security Council condemned the bombings in the strongest terms, calling them a threat to international peace and security. At the weekend, I spoke to Prime Minister Howard and to the Premier of Western Australia to express my condolences to them, and I will speak to President Megawati later. I have also spoken to President Bush. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke at the weekend to his Australian and Indonesian counterparts, and he is discussing the issues with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington today. A team of specialist officers from the Metropolitan police service antiterrorist branch has already flown to Bali, and more are on their way. US and Australian experts are also on the scene.

I should like to place on record the Government's gratitude for the help extended by both the Indonesian and Australian authorities to all those from the United Kingdom who have been caught up in these dreadful events.

We had no specific intelligence relating to the attack in Bali. We do not yet know for certain who carried it out, but we do know that there are groups of extremists active in the region, some of which have strong links to al-Qaeda. Those groups have worked with al-Qaeda on attack plans in the past. We know that they have tried before to carry out major terrorist atrocities in the region—for example, in Singapore last December, when a massive attack planned against targets, including the British high commission, was thwarted by the Singaporean authorities. I discussed that with the Prime Minister of Singapore when he visited London in April this year. He told me that had the authorities not discovered these plans, hundreds of people could have died.

The Indonesian authorities have been conscious for some time of the growing threat from extremists in the region. Indonesia is a secular country with a tradition of tolerance and moderate Islam of which Indonesians are rightly proud, but prior to 11 September, and especially afterwards, we identified the south-east Asian region, including Indonesia, as an area with a real and present threat from groups linked to al-Qaeda. The most prominent is Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a network stretching across a number of countries in the region, and which has to be one of the groups under most suspicion for this atrocity. We are urgently considering proscribing it under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Earlier this year, we put in place an enhanced package of counter-terrorism assistance for Indonesia, including specific programmes on intelligence, crisis management and aviation security. We also offered assistance with bomb disposal and bomb scene management training.

In June, I met President Megawati in London to discuss how we could fight terrorism in Indonesia more effectively, and we agreed to expand our existing programme further, drawing on the wide range of expertise in counter-terrorism that Britain can offer. We will do so in close co-operation with the US and Australia, as well as with the Indonesian authorities. We have also set up programmes to help other Governments in the region. In the Philippines, we are training in counter-terrorism, hostage negotiation and police investigations. In Malaysia, we are setting up training by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch and in bomb disposal. We fully support the tripartite counterterrorism agreement signed by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines earlier this year, designed to combat money laundering, illegal border crossing and the illegal trade in arms.

Of course, since 11 September, here in Britain we have enhanced our intelligence efforts, strengthened protection against rogue aircraft and shipping, and clamped down on sources of terrorist financing. We have passed new anti-terrorist legislation. Internationally, we have put a new UN framework in place, under UK chairmanship, to ensure more effective national and international action against terrorism, and we have increased intelligence co-operation, strengthening existing partnerships and putting in place new ones across the world.

So we have had a fresh reminder, if we needed one, that the war against terrorism is not over. In the past 10 days, there have been attacks in Kuwait and in Yemen. The threat to all people at any time, at any place in the world, is real. In the end, it is not just the families now grieving for their loved ones who suffer, but the people of Indonesia, many of whom already live in poverty, who will have to face the devastating economic consequences of this attack for their country, as those bombs, and the fanatics who use them, do not discriminate between young and old, east and west, black and white, Christian and Muslim. They will kill anyone of any race, creed or colour. They respect no frontiers. They have no inhibitions in murdering the innocent—indeed they rejoice in it. Because of the way they work, in small cells of fanatics, and because their victims are the most vulnerable—people in a pub or a cafe, on a street or on holiday—discovering where and how they might strike next is hard. But the message we send out, and should send out, is once again the same—one of total defiance, of determination in the face of this evil to prosecute the fight against them the world over, until in time they are defeated: defeated, of course by intelligence, by police and even military action, but defeated also in the triumph of our values of tolerance, freedom and the rule of law over those of terror designed to produce bloodshed, fear and hatred.

Some say that we should fight terrorism alone, and that issues to do with weapons of mass destruction are a distraction. I reject that entirely. Both, though different in means, are the same in nature. Both are the new threats facing the post- cold war world. Both are threats from people or states who do not care about human life, who have no compunction about killing the innocent. Both represent the extreme replacing the rational, the fanatic driving out moderation. Both are intent not on letting people live in peace with each other, celebrate our diversity, and work out our differences in an orderly way, but on producing such chaos and disorder that out of it comes a world in which religions and nations and peoples fight each other for supremacy. That is the true measure of what is at stake. The war on terrorism is indeed a war, but of a different sort to the ones we are used to. Its outcome, however, is as important as any we have fought before.

May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? I should like to join him in welcoming the swift action and help given by the Foreign Office to support the many British families who have lost loved ones in Bali over the weekend. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, as they are with all the victims' families.

If 11 September was a nightmare, the atrocity in Bali marks the moment when the world woke up to the fact that that nightmare had become a living reality. Today, more than 180 people lie dead—up to 30 Britons among them—and hundreds more are injured. They were backpackers and holidaymakers, couples on honeymoon and tourist workers—innocents in a self-styled tropical paradise who were killed by an unspeakable evil that we must face up to. Terrorism is a cancer and it must be rooted out wherever and whenever we find it. So I welcome the assistance that the United Kingdom is lending to the Australian and Indonesian authorities in their search for those responsible for the Kuta beach bombing and in their efforts to bring those people to justice.

I hope that everybody will remember that this is the second largest terrorist atrocity committed against British people—the first being the World Trade Centre. In a little over a year, more than 150 British citizens have died in those two incidents—so this is our struggle too, wherever the incidents, at home or beyond our shores. I am therefore pleased that the Prime Minister has confirmed that this latest attack has stiffened our resolve to tackle terrorism around the world.

A great deal has been done since 11 September to deal with global terrorism, even though some claim otherwise. Much of it—I hope that people will understand—necessarily has been behind the scenes. We know the benefits of international co-operation from working with countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, where recent planned terrorist attacks have been foiled with the help of UK and American intelligence. It is also worth noting that, as I understand it, the Saudi authorities have in the past couple of hours thwarted yet another attempt to hijack an airliner. So there have been successes; the events of the past weekend, however, show just how much work there is still left to do.

For some time, Indonesia has been warned by its neighbours and by the United States about the activities of terrorist cells on its soil. There were 30 bombings in Indonesia last year and an attempted attack on the US embassy in Jakarta last month. I therefore ask the Prime Minister why Jemaah Islamiyah—the group implicated in that attack—was not placed on any list of foreign terrorist organisations published by the US State Department, the European Union or the UK Government. He talked about dealing with that group, so why is he using the phrase that he is "only considering" proscribing it? Does he still lack the evidence? What links, if any, are there between that group and any organisations in the UK? Are there any provable links or any suspicion of which he is aware?

The Prime Minister has held talks with President Megawati. What steps are we taking to ensure that Indonesia deals with militant Islamic groups as effectively as its neighbours such as Singapore and Malaysia? He said that he had received no specific information about an attack in Bali, but I am aware that on Thursday the US State Department issued a general warning that all American citizens should stay away from venues such as nightclubs in certain countries. Was the intelligence that was available to the State Department when it issued that warning also available to us?

The need to root out terrorist groups is as urgent as the need to confront Saddam Hussein. I agree with the Prime Minister that there should be no doubt that it cannot be a question of either/or. I agree with him that those who say—there have been some—that we must choose between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are offering a false choice. Bali cannot be used as a pretext for letting Saddam off the hook. Surely the duty of any British Government is to protect British citizens against all threats—not merely to give them a false choice and present them with one threat. On the contrary. just as 11 September did, this attack shows what happens when the world fails to respond to threats as they arise, giving clear signals about further and future attacks.

The war against terrorism and our determination to disarm Iraq must surely proceed in parallel. However, the British people need complete reassurance that we are capable now of doing both. Will the Prime Minister let us all know that we will make the necessary intelligence capability, manpower and equipment available, and that nothing will stand in the way of that, regardless of implications for future financial resources?

Saturday's tragic events have shown that we must be able to fight a long-term conventional war against global terrorism, even as we prepare for another form of war against Iraq. Resources must be matched to meet the threats that we face. Without that resolve, there can be no true and lasting peace for Britain. In our defence, we must surely steel ourselves for the fact that this is now a struggle not just for a few people in distant lands, but for all of us to defend our civilised values against those who would tear them down and return us to a new dark age.

I shall respond reasonably briefly, as I obviously agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. On some of the specific points, of course it is right that many attempted terrorist acts have been foiled, which is to the great credit of those who succeeded in doing so. The trouble is that the terrorists need succeed only once; that is the problem that we face.

The reason there has been hesitation in proscribing the particular organisation is indeed a lack of proof of whether it has been involved, but it is the most obvious suspect for the latest atrocity. We are considering it precisely for that reason, and we need to assess the evidence carefully. It is right to say, however, that we are aware of no connection with any group in this country.

In relation to warnings that have been given, there are two difficulties. The first is that there were no specific warnings of which I am aware in relation to the attack in Bali. What there have been, of course, are specific warnings about the potential for attacks in Indonesia. Indeed, last month the Americans and ourselves acted to protect our high commissions in Jakarta precisely because of worries about potential terrorist threats.

The difficulty—this is the second point—is that intelligence of an unspecific nature flows across our desks all the time. It is very difficult to work out what we must focus on and deal with, and what is so broad that we cannot deal with it. That is why we must take action not just on the intelligence front, but in trying to work out those groups' sources of weapons and bombs, how they are financed, the types of covert activity that give them the means to carry out such attacks, and where their sympathisers are in various parts of the world. All that must be part of how we act.

I emphasise, as I said right after 11 September and have said constantly since then, that that will take a significant time. We have dealt to a large extent with the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan, but their cells remain in different parts of the world and we must go after them in each part of the world. We have discussed the matter a great deal with Indonesia, we have offered what help we can, and I know that the Americans and the Australians have done the same. The reason I had the meeting with President Megawati in London in June was to see what more we can do. We will now be looking further at what we can do.

Finally, in relation to intelligence capability, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the intelligence services will have the resources that they need to do the job that we need them to do.

I entirely associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the proper expressions of sympathy in the House this afternoon. All of us watching those awful television pictures over the past few days, particularly of the relatives making their way to Bali and trying desperately to find some information about their missing loved ones, will not have failed to realise the utter horror of what has taken place and its global unacceptability.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the wake of the tragedy, the international community must take stock of the campaign against terrorism? The new intelligence co-operation to which he referred this afternoon is obviously welcome, as is the deployment of forces to Indonesia and to the region. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that in giving support to Indonesia, it is probably worth bearing in mind the fact that we want to keep the focus of that support on civilian forces and the police, rather than on the military, because there is at least the possibility of links between the army and other Islamic terrorists?

Are the Government addressing that issue in the course of their dealings with the Indonesian authorities? Obviously, they must be given every encouragement to deter future acts of terrorism, but is not one of the lessons of this outrage that we are not facing a single threat from a single enemy in a single place, and that the complex roots of terrorism mean, as the American writer, Flannery O'Connor, once put it, that

"The terrorist seeks to wash an impure world clean with the blood of innocent victims"?

Do not we need, therefore, to tackle not only the war on terrorism, as the President and the Prime Minister call it, but the other global factors that give rise to the causes of terrorism—not least, for example, poverty? Should not we again take this opportunity to reassure the law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim community both in our country and abroad that our campaign is not against them, but against the extremists who pervert their religion and principles?

Does the Prime Minister agree with former President Clinton that

"our most pressing security challenge is to finish the job against al-Qaeda"?

Does he share the anxiety expressed by European Union Commissioner Chris Patten, who said that he hopes that the efforts against Iraq do not distract us from the need for further efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and against al-Qaeda itself?

Finally, is it the Prime Minister's assessment that, if there were a war against Iraq, it would increase or decrease the likelihood of further international terrorist incidents of the type that we have just seen?

Let me emphasise that we will offer the relatives of those who have died in this terrorist outrage all the help that we can. When they are facing a very difficult and uncertain time and are travelling to a faraway country, we must ensure that we provide absolutely every form of assistance that we can, and we will do so. Essentially, we are providing exactly the same help as we provided for relatives in the aftermath of 11 September.

In respect of Indonesia, we will work with whatever part of the Government we can and whatever forces there are in Indonesia to try to help them combat this terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have argued long and hard—and I continue to do so—for a broader international agenda that deals with some of the issues of poverty and development in the world. However, it is important at this point and on this day in particular to make one thing clear: the terrorists carrying out these appalling acts are doing terrible damage to Muslims the world over and are killing many innocent Muslims. As for poverty, quite apart from the terrible loss of life in Indonesia, we can only reflect on how much poverty will be caused by the destruction of the tourism industry, certainly for the near future in Bali and possibly beyond. The situation is therefore very serious for the poorest people in Indonesia. We know from the way in which al-Qaeda operates that the people involved are not necessarily poor at all; they are often extremely well funded, but have a particular type of fanaticism that I think we must confront.

As for the issue of weapons of mass destruction or Iraq, I shall not repeat what I have already said, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Danish Prime Minister, the President of the European Union, said a moment ago in our press conference. He said that both the issues were threats and had to be tackled, and that we should show the same firmness of will in respect of both.

Will my right hon. Friend share in the sympathy for the family and friends of Mr. Ian Findley of my constituency? He was one of those who tragically lost their lives in Bali. I want to put on record my thanks and those of the family for the support that they have received from the Foreign Office. At such a difficult time for them, will my right hon. Friend give them at least the comfort that should they need financial support to return Ian's body to the United Kingdom, it will be forthcoming?

I join my hon. Friend in sending deep sympathy and condolences to Mr. Findley's family. I assure him and them that we shall give every assistance in returning his body to this country for a proper funeral. Mr. Findley's family are among many who, unfortunately, are grieving, and we shall do everything that we can to help them, as we did after 11 September.

Will the Prime Minister suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should hold discussions with the insurance industry, for which he has overall responsibility, about holiday insurance? Many people take out no insurance; more take out insurance that is almost useless, and some take out expensive insurance and find that the exclusions are burdensome. That will have a huge impact on not only the British insurance industry but tourism, on which so many poor people in the world depend.

I am not sure whether there is an easy answer to such questions, but I shall raise with the Chancellor the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

At the beginning of August, I led an inter-faith delegation from Parliament to Indonesia under the auspices of the Foreign Office. We specifically examined some of the problems that relate to Muslim-Christian conflict, but we also considered the wider scene. We must remember that Indonesia is a three-year-old, fledgling democracy. It is throwing off a corrupt and repressive regime and trying to establish a tolerant and just society while also dealing with unorthodox Islamic extremists. In addition to any help in finding the barbaric perpetrators of the bomb massacre in Bali, will my right hon. Friend ensure that our Government continue with the much-appreciated programmes of help and support to develop good governance, justice and inter-faith harmony, especially in places such as central Sulawesi and Maluku, where serious violence has occurred? The Bali massacre has tragically thrown all that into the spotlight.

My hon. Friend is right. Indonesia has escaped military rule and, as he said, is a fledgling democracy. It is tragic if its democratic stability faces another threat. We shall continue with our programmes to develop good governance. We specifically discussed inter-faith dialogue when I met the President of Indonesia in June. It is an important, long-term part of the solution.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a powerful point when he drew attention to the number of Britons who have been killed in the incident and others. However, the specific incident that we are discussing constituted a day of infamy especially for Australia; it is Australia's equivalent of 11 September. Will the Prime Minister be as supportive of Australia in the coming months as he rightly was of the United States after 11 September?

I have heard some people in this country argue that if Britain remained apart from the war against terrorism and from that against weapons of mass destruction, we might somehow be spared the aggression of terrorists. Does not the incident underline what many of us knew: no one will be spared in the war of aggression by terrorists, and the only answer is therefore for the world community to join the fight against terrorism?

I agree entirely. On the first point, I phoned Prime Minister John Howard immediately after the incident and we not only expressed our condolences but discussed what we could to do to help. I also spoke to the Premier of Western Australia because many victims came from there. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we will do all that we can to support Australia at this very difficult time. Australians realise, as do the British, that, in the end, there is no secure sanctuary from international terrorism, and that the only option available to us that we can possibly take with our heads held high is to be part of the coalition against international terrorism. Australia has played a magnificent part in that over the past year or so, and we must continue to be with them in that fight.

May I join the Prime Minister in condemning the outrageous and barbaric act perpetrated against the young people in Bali and offer my sympathy to those left behind? In the light of this latest outrage, however, should we not be targeting all our resources and energies on fighting terrorism, rather than starting another war in the middle east? Surely the Prime Minister will agree that to start such a war would fan the flames of fundamentalism across the whole area and make matters much worse. Our priorities must be to get the weapons inspectors back and to concentrate on getting rid of al-Qaeda. That is the way in which to protect all our citizens.

Obviously, my hon. Friend and I will not agree on all aspects of the Iraq issue, but I do agree with what she said a moment ago about our priority being to ensure that we root out terrorism wherever it is, and, through the United Nations, to achieve the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through a proper inspections regime. That is what we are working towards. As I said in my statement, however, this is not an either/or, and we really need to tackle both these issues, as both are threats to the stability and order of the world.

While everybody utterly deplores this wicked, cruel act of terrorism, I would like to pursue a point made by the Leader of the Liberal Democratic party, which is that it will not be sufficient for us to continue to denounce terrorism in general terms. If we are really going to grapple with the problem, we must of course use military and intelligence means, but we must also tackle its sources. They are not simply religious ones, and these acts are not organised solely by one small terrorist group. After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Indonesia was left to wallow in chaos without the international financial organisations making any serious attempt to help, while the rest of the world humiliated Indonesia in East Timor. In those circumstances—in a country of 200 million people with a Government who are not in effective control—it is not surprising that chaos is breaking out all over that vast archipelago, and this may be only the first of many disasters.

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on East Timor; I think that the Government took a brave and correct decision in what they did there. I do not disagree that we need a broad agenda at an international level; indeed,. I have often argued for that. At this moment, however, we must be careful of saying, in effect, that these people are carrying out these attacks because of the real problems of poverty or underdevelopment in Indonesia. They are not. They are fanatics and extremists whose very acts will have brought more poverty and more underdevelopment to Indonesia. I do not disagree that it is important for the international community to give Indonesia the chance to get on its feet economically. Indeed, this country has been trying to do so; that was another thing that we discussed with the Indonesian President in June. At this moment, however, we should not mix our messages about what has happened. It is wrong and wicked, and has nothing to do with advancing any cause that any of us recognise as justified.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the horrific events of the past few days underline the fact that the fight against international terrorism must be our topmost priority? That fight depends on the broad-based coalition that he and President Bush put together after 11 September. Is it not, therefore, all the more important that my right hon. Friend get it across to President Bush that any military conflict outside the authority of the United Nations would fracture that coalition and undermine the fight against terrorism?

We do want to ensure that we have the broadest possible coalition, not just in the fight against terrorism but in dealing with weapons of mass destruction. That is what we are working for and, as my right hon. Friend rightly implies, it is important that we maximise international support. I have always said, however, that it is important that the coalition addresses both issues. As President Bush's speech the other day in Cincinnati indicated, the United States has a real desire to ensure that we have the broadest possible coalition to deal with those issues, because they are both threats to the world. Weapons of mass destruction are a real threat. In my first statement to the House on the events of 11 September, on 14 September, I specifically linked the two issues together, and I continue to do so. They are both threats of the same nature, although different in means. I agree that the best way to deal with them is on the basis of the broadest possible international support.

I associate the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru with the sympathy and condolences expressed to those who have been injured and bereaved in this atrocity. I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister, but I wonder how it could be sensible to fight a war on two fronts if any preoccupation with a military campaign in Iraq were to detract, disrupt, deflect or in any way undermine the solidarity of the international coalition against terrorism.

We have to tackle the danger, whatever its source. If the danger comes from more than one source, we have to tackle it in more than one way. It is important to recognise that both issues are threats, and I shall explain why they are linked. They are linked because the same type of fanaticism and extremism is driving both threats. They may not be directly linked at this moment, in the sense that weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the terrorists, but I ask the House to consider whether if we allow unstable states—with oppressive and dictatorial regimes—to develop weapons of mass destruction and also allow the terrorist groups to operate, we can be confident that the two threats will not at some point come together. I think that that is a real possibility, which is why it is false and—I say this respectfully—dangerous to suggest that we somehow have a choice between dealing with the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable countries and dealing with international terrorism. They are of the same nature and, unless we tackle both, they could come together at some point in a horrific way.

Does not this tragedy all too graphically remind us of the absolute importance of the international coalition against terrorism, especially the need to sustain and enhance that coalition across the countries and Governments of the Muslim world? Therefore, is it not important that we do nothing by unilateral decision or action, outside the institutions of the international community, that might diminish or damage that central purpose of combating terrorism?

Yes, it is important that we do not do anything that damages the international coalition against terrorism. As my right hon. Friend will accept, in many ways it is Muslim countries that have most to fear from this terrorism, but it is also important to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I have been trying to get us to deal with that also on a broad basis of international support, and I am confident that in the end we will get that support. Our use of the international coalition must allow us to tackle and deal with those problems, not be a means to avoid dealing with them.

The Prime Minister knows the support that exists among Conservative Members for his sentiments and for the difficult course that he has set. However, will he deal with the very real deficiencies hampering our armed forces in the challenge that they face? The regular Army shrank again last year, there are 7,000 personnel unfit for military duty, reserves are at an all-time low and another RAF squadron has closed because of a lack of pilots. I urge the Prime Minister to accept that, in the difficult time ahead, we owe it to our armed forces to tackle those problems.

There are, and always will be, matters that need to be addressed in respect of our armed forces. However, let me point out that defence spending is now rising, after falling in real terms for many years. We take very seriously matters that arise in connection with our armed forces' equipment or capability, but their commitment and capability are renowned and well regarded the world over.

As someone with one foot in this country and the other in Australia, may I associate myself especially with the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made about the victims of the tragedy, and their relatives and friends?

I am concerned about the moneys flowing to terrorists. Earlier this year, the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism came into force. All countries are obliged to take action, as this country has done. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the actions taken by other countries?

The truthful answer is that those actions have been mixed. There have been real successes in the action taken against money laundering, and there is real evidence that that activity is being disrupted. However, it is worth pointing out that there is always a tremendous will to take action in the immediate aftermath of very serious incidents. We in this country have introduced legislation but, surprising as it may seem, people's memories fade in a short space of time. Subsequently, there are many arguments about whether action should be taken against money laundering or against terrorist groups, and so on. Once again, we have been reminded that we need to take action at a national and an international level.

The honest answer to my hon. and learned Friend is that real progress is being made. However, I agree, as his question implied, that a lot more could be done.

Clearly, I do not know whether the estates of any of those who met untimely deaths in Bali this week or in the United States last year are liable to inheritance tax, but will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor consider exempting any estate that is so liable?

I simply do not know the answer to that. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The outrageous atrocity against innocent people carried out on Saturday night should help to concentrate our minds. Two things are essential: we must maintain the coalition that involves the US, the UK, Russia and the Muslim countries in an alliance against international terrorism, and we must not give any comfort to al-Qaeda and the international terrorists. If we were to take military action in the light of recent events involving Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be acting as a recruiting sergeant for the international terrorists whom we must defeat?

Again, let me say that it is important that we maintain the international coalition, but we should not underestimate the knowledge among Arab and Muslim countries of the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction. After all, the two countries that have suffered most from Saddam are Iran and Kuwait. However, I agree with what my hon. Friend said. I make the point again that it is important that we have the broadest possible international coalition, but I think that we can, and should, deal with both issues.

In recent years, I have spoken in the House about the often very violent attacks suffered by minority communities in Indonesia, to which the military appears to have turned a blind eye. Those attacks have received very little publicity because local people rather than Europeans were involved. Is the Prime Minister worried about the profound sense of alienation from western values that exists in many Muslim societies? That alienation often reaches right to the top of society.

Given the Prime Minister's experience with Northern Ireland, does he agree that we must root out, through military and intelligence means, both terrorism and its causes? In other words, will he be—to coin a phrase—tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism?

I agree, certainly, that we should not simply try to deal with this by means of intelligence. I also agree that there is a lot of anti-west feeling in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world—there is no point in denying that. Our response must surely be twofold. First, we must deal with issues where a reasonable point is being made. Many people feel, and have felt on many occasions, that it is important to show the same rigorous concern for dealing with all the issues of conflict around the world as we have shown, for example, in the coalition against terrorism. However, we must also confront extremism and fundamentalism where they effectively mean that people are, as they were in Afghanistan, forced to live in a state of abject repression or where they try to justify terrorism. I do not believe that those things genuinely have anything to do with the true voice of Islam, and I think that the majority of Muslims feel the same.

Is not the price of freedom eternal vigilance, and is not the fact that so many young lives have been lost a reminder of that dire statement?

The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the United Nations Security Council has passed a further resolution condemning the bombings and also that there is co-operation with in the framework of the United Nations to attack global outreach terrorism. However, will he confirm that in the association with Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom in Bali, there can be co-operation outside the United Nations as well as within it? Finally, will he tell the House where we are with the United Nations resolution on Iraq?

On my hon. Friend's latter point, we are pursuing it and I hope and believe that we can achieve a consensus on it. On his first point, he is right that we must work with the authorities in Indonesia as well as the Australians and Americans to do everything that we can to counter the terrorist threat. I can assure him that we are doing that.

On behalf of the Unionist Members and the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland, may I express sympathy to those in Australia and in other parts of the world who have suffered in this appalling tragedy? Regrettably, there has been a sense of denial at various levels. In May this year, I asked in the House about links with al-Qaeda. At the time, there was no knowledge of any, but some of us were aware of them. When we were in Indonesia, we discovered that that was the name that they dared not speak. In other words, they were aware of the issue but not prepared to face it.

Dropping the word "international" from terrorism is a blessing, because we must realise that terrorism is homespun as well as international. Therefore, we join the Prime Minister in his leadership to deal with terrorism whence it comes. Regrettably, for example, in Northern Ireland, in the fight against organised crime, there seem to be delays between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office in putting into action some of the things that are needed and were agreed to earlier.

The statement from the Security Council on terrorism is to be welcomed. I trust that it will be equally united not only in putting forward a statement but in recommending action to deal with terrorism, whether it is in the form of weapons of mass destruction or the car bombs that plague our communities. We will back it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on the statement. What he says is right: we must deal with this issue whatever its source and origin. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement on Northern Ireland shortly.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Northern Ireland.

As the House knows, over the past weeks and months the political process in Northern Ireland has encountered increasing difficulties. I do not need to remind the House of the magnitude of the project on which we are embarked in Northern Ireland, nor that in any great historic process of this kind, there will inevitably be setbacks and difficulties.

My sincere hope, therefore, was that we would be able to overcome those latest challenges in the short term. That is why the Prime Minister and I have had intensive discussions in recent days with the Northern Ireland political parties and the Irish Government. However, it became clear that an impasse had been reached and that decisive action was needed to safeguard the progress made and tackle the remaining challenges. Because of the difficulties that we have encountered, yesterday I made an order under the Northern Ireland Act 2000 suspending devolved government in Northern Ireland. It came into effect at midnight yesterday. I said yesterday that I regretted that that had become inevitable. The real losers here are the ordinary people of Northern Ireland—those who appreciate and deserve 1ocal decisions being made by local politicians to improve the lives of local people, not least because the devolved Administration have achieved so much on their behalf and in their interest.

I take this opportunity to pay warm tribute to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and his predecessor, their ministerial colleagues and the Assembly Members themselves for all that they have done in a relatively short period to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland and to express the hope—I do very much hope this—that the devolved institution can be restored quickly.

I stress that that impasse affects only one aspect of the Belfast agreement, albeit an important one. As the joint statement by the Prime Minister made clear, this Government remain totally committed to the full implementation of the agreement. It has already brought great benefits to the people of Northern Ireland.

In their statement yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also recognised that the recent difficulties in Northern Ireland stemmed from a loss of trust on both sides of the community. There has been much apportioning of blame already and there is no doubt that there is a lack of confidence on both sides of the community. At the heart of the recent political difficulties, however, have been concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means.

Let us be clear, lest anyone should think that we do not take a balanced view, that we have seen violence from all sides of the community, including a campaign, sometimes murderous in its intent and effect, from the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Let it be equally clear that the Chief Constable and I are combating and will combat that violence with all the means at our disposal, wherever it happens and whoever is behind it. We will go where the evidence leads. That is why I recently redoubled our efforts by setting up, in addition to the organised crime taskforce, the law and order action group, which brings together the key agencies to strengthen our drive against all forms of racketeering and violence from wherever they may come. In that context, I have to tell the House that an arrest was made this morning in connection with the shooting of Danny McBrearty in Londonderry on 29 September. Police inquiries are continuing and will continue into that violent act as well.

I have absolutely no doubt that episodes such as the trial of republicans in Colombia and the break-in at Castlereagh have seriously damaged confidence in the power-sharing arrangements. It would, of course, be entirely improper for any of us, not least a Minister of the Crown, to prejudge the outcomes of any cases involving outstanding criminal charges. However, it would be naïve of any of us to ignore the impact on political and public opinion of the recent charges brought against republicans, including members of Sinn Fein, as a result of the police operation on 4 October.

Like me, the House will be particularly concerned about the position of prison officers and others and their families, for whose assistance the police have now established a special unit. The Prison Service is working closely with the police and has established a helpline to that end.

Let me say to the House that there can be no authority, no legitimacy, no morality and no political basis for anyone, in today's Northern Ireland, to have recourse to violence or paramilitary activity. Whatever may have happened 30 years ago, or 300 years ago, in today's Northern Ireland the path to power through democracy is open to everyone and the path of violence is illegitimate for anyone. It is also essential, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach noted, that each community has confidence in the commitment of the other to the agreement.

That is now the challenge that faces us. Yesterday was, perhaps not surprisingly, filled with recrimination. Today and the days beyond that should be about rebuilding: but that rebuilding has to be on foundations that are firm, sound and lasting. It is against this background that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach said yesterday that

"it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion".

In their statement, they also said:

"It is now essential that the concerns around the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means are removed. The time has come for people to clearly choose one track or the other"—

in Northern Ireland.

We face some difficult and challenging weeks ahead. Our task is threefold. First, we need to move rapidly and decisively from the recent weeks of political uncertainty. I have no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland—who should always be at the front of our minds in all that we are doing—welcome, appreciate and deserve devolved government. Like them, I would have much preferred devolved government continuing, with local Ministers making local decisions. But until it can be restored, my colleagues and I will dedicate ourselves to working for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland to the best—the very best—of our abilities.

In the meantime, we shall carry on the process of government in Northern Ireland proactively, in the interest of all its people. This cannot be a matter of mere care and maintenance. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland that effective government should be moved forward. We shall not duck the difficult issues. We shall be able to build on the progress made by the devolved Administration in many areas, taking careful account of the "Programme for Government" and the principles of reinvestment and reform on which it is based and which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have supported. I met both of them yesterday to begin to discuss some of those matters.

The Policing Board is widely agreed to have been one of the finest achievements of the agreement. I want its work to continue. The House will recall that it was the first time in our history that there was a cross-community, elected policing board. I have invited all the existing board members to continue providing their excellent service to the community. I sincerely hope—as I know the House will, too—that they will all accept reappointment.

In this context, I also welcome two new members of the ministerial team. I am making available separately the details of ministerial appointments under suspension. In broad terms, the Minister of State's additional responsibilities will focus on education and those of the Under-Secretary of State on social issues, including health. The portfolios of the new Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) and for Basildon (Angela Smith), will centre respectively on economic affairs and environmental issues. Our first task is the good governance of Northern Ireland.

Secondly, under the terms of the agreement, we need to embark on a process of review. I shall be in touch with the parties and the Irish Government as to how that should be taken forward. I want to stress that this is an impasse—hopefully short-lived—in only one aspect of the agreement. It is not the whole agreement and it is not the whole peace process. We will continue, in cooperation with the parties and our colleagues in the Irish Government, to carry forward that process and the implementation of the agreement.

Thirdly, with reference to the problems underlying the present suspension that I mentioned earlier, we will bend every effort to find a basis on which to bring back the devolved institutions, and as quickly as possible. The role and the responsibility of the political parties in achieving that are vital. It is our aim to find a basis on which all the institutions of the agreement can be brought back into operation as soon as possible. The election date scheduled for 1 May stands and is not altered by yesterday's decision.

These, then, are the three priorities: the good governance of Northern Ireland, carrying forward the agreement and addressing the present impasse. They will inform the approach of the Government over the coming weeks and months. In those tasks, we will call upon the co-operation and support of the House, of the parties, our colleagues in the Irish Government and those far beyond our shores, such as the President and people of the United States, who have been unstinting in their support for this historic project.

I can promise the House that, for our part, we will bear ourselves with determination and endurance, because we recognise that the magnitude of the prize that we seek is commensurate with the challenges that we face.

We have come an enormous distance in recent years. The peace process and the agreement have increased prosperity, revitalised society, safeguarded rights and, above all, saved numerous lives. I am determined that those benefits should not be lost, but should increase. The agreement will remain the template for political progress in Northern Ireland. I hope that the decision that I took yesterday and I have explained to the House today creates a breathing space—a chance to gather strength—before that progress moves forward once again.

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement. I should also like to congratulate, on behalf of the Opposition, the two new Ministers who have joined his team—the hon. Members for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) and for Basildon (Angela Smith). I should also like to endorse his appreciation, which we strongly share, of the great efforts that have been made by so many people in Northern Ireland to make a success of devolution: the First Minister and the Members of the Executive—except for the Sinn Fein Members who are responsible for today's setback—and the Members of the Assembly and so many people throughout Northern Ireland. It is a very disappointing day for all of us—for us in the House, but for the people in Northern Ireland in particular.

We can only hope that this setback—the Secretary of State was right to use the word "setback"—is only temporary, and I hope that the political process and devolution can be restored as soon as possible. I should also like to extend our congratulations to the Chief Constable on the prompt and effective actions of the police over the past few weeks, and it is very good news—I strongly support what the Secretary of State has decided in this matter—that the police board has been asked to continue. I also share the right hon. Gentleman's relief that an arrest has been made in connection with the shooting of Mr. McBrearty in Londonderry a few weeks ago.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, however, that we have made it clear—I to him in private and several of us in public—that we do not share the Government's view that suspension of the institutions is the right response to this crisis? Suspension amounts to penalising the innocent—indeed, the whole peace process—because of the misbehaviour of one party. That seems perverse, and to take risks with the whole process, which we find unnecessary and undesirable. Our strong preference was to exclude the guilty party, which is—although I notice that the Secretary of State still does not quite want to use the words—Sinn Fein-IRA, by taking powers in the House to enable the Secretary of State to exclude any party in breach of its obligations, and we argued very forcefully for that in the debate that we had in this Chamber in July. Is it not very regrettable that the Government took no notice of those arguments and that when the latest crisis broke that power was not in the Government's armoury at all?

The Secretary of State, of course, took the line in July that the mechanism of an exclusion motion in the Assembly, not his taking the power in the House to exclude, was quite adequate for the purpose, and he promised to introduce such a motion in the event of another Sinn Fein-IRA breach. Let me quote the right hon. Gentleman's words precisely:

"In circumstances in which I decided that the IRA had broken the ceasefire, I would be ready to use that power, and to place such a motion before the Assembly to require it to address the matter."—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 992.]

Why did he not fulfil that promise yesterday instead of suspending? Is it not rather destructive of confidence on the part of all concerned, particularly those who have to deal with the Secretary of State, that he should promise to adopt a particular course in a given eventuality in July and do something quite different when that eventuality duly presented itself in October?

Our responsibility is now to make the best of the situation, to contribute to ensuring that the governance of Northern Ireland from Whitehall and Westminster is as effective as it can be and to bring back devolution as soon as possible. We are absolutely committed to that objective, and I shall ask a number of practical questions on that in a moment. But does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be quite remiss of Parliament to brush over this dramatic reversal without asking some of the essential questions that arise and trying to draw the appropriate lessons for the future?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the great moral blame for what has happened must lie with Sinn Fein-IRA and with no one else? They have persistently and blatantly breached their obligations under the ceasefire and the agreement. Why does the Secretary of State find it so difficult to say so unambiguously and explicitly?

Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, not accept that the Government cannot escape their share of responsibility for allowing the situation to deteriorate in the way that it has? Was is not a very serious error of judgment not to respond at all to the successive Sinn Fein-IRA breaches of the agreement and the ceasefire, such as those in Florida, Colombia and Castlereagh—we all know what they were—as we urged the Government to do at the time? How can anyone seriously have supposed that failing to respond at all to blatant breaches of that kind could do other than encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to go for worse breaches in the future? 'Was not that fundamental error compounded by the extraordinary decision during precisely that period to offer Sinn Fein-IRA new concessions going right beyond the Belfast agreement, such as the promise of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists or a special status in the House? Since Sinn Fein-IRA have so clearly breached the good faith on which the Government were counting when they offered that concession, is it not now time to review it?

We can all hope that however much the Government want to wriggle away from this and however much they want simply to sweep all those issues under the carpet and say, "Well, this is a new beginning; let us not talk about the past", they are inwardly contrite about those mistakes because it is very important indeed that, as and when we get back to devolution, mistakes of that kind are not made again.

Now let me turn to the immediate practical issues that arise. Will the Secretary of State clarify what he just said about elections in Northern Ireland remaining on schedule for May? Does he mean that those elections will still take place even if there is no Assembly at the time for those elected to sit in? If that is not what he means, will he just elucidate the position to the House? Of course, if he tells us that he is certain that we can return to devolution by that time, we shall be the first to be delighted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, indeed. Labour Members do not like that, but I have to tell them that they will not be able to shout down the history books. When the history of the peace process is written, it will show that our judgment was vindicated by events and that our judgment would have enabled the process set up by the Belfast agreement to continue.

How do the Government propose to legislate from now on for Northern Ireland? Does the Secretary of State accept that Orders in Council, which cannot be amended here, are a thoroughly unsatisfactory method of legislation? Does he also agree that Parliament will now need more time to consider Northern Ireland because of the much wider range of responsibilities for which Ministers here are directly accountable? Does he therefore agree that Northern Ireland Question Time will need to be longer than it has been in recent years? What role does he envisage for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee? Does he agree that, above all, in present circumstances, we must not repeat the bad example of last year, when there was not a single policy debate on Northern Ireland in Government time in the whole of the year? We had to use Opposition time for such a debate before the House rose in July. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet with the Opposition and the Northern Ireland parties to discuss how scrutiny can best be applied in these new circumstances and how Parliament can do its job?

Finally, and very importantly, will the Secretary of State be frank with the House on any understandings or undertakings—I include informal understandings—that may have been reached with the Government of the Irish Republic on consultation or co-ordination with them under the new direct rule regime?

First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations to my colleagues, and for his kind remarks, which were well deserved, about the Chief Constable.

In terms of what arrangements have been made with the Irish Government or the other parties, my priorities in the first few days and the first week have been to attend to the governance of Northern Ireland. I shall therefore meet the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as they were yesterday, along with other Ministers, to achieve the handover. At that stage, I shall discuss matters with the Irish Government and the other parties to consider how to carry forward the other aspects of the process. That will probably be done, as I think I said in my statement, through the British-Irish intergovernmental conference provided for in the agreement.

As for blame, I think that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said, as he claimed that I was reticent to blame republicans or Sinn Fein for what happened. I mentioned Colombia and Castlereagh, and, having said that it was improper to prejudge things—I think that it is—it would be naïve to underestimate the political effect and the effect on public opinion of those events. I went on to refer to the impact of the opinion of the charges brought against republicans, including members of Sinn Fein—I said that specifically—as a result of the police operation of 4 October. It is therefore beyond rhetoric to suggest that I neither alluded to nor referred to Sinn Fein; I specifically mentioned it.

As for the exclusion option that was available to us, we were presented with various options ranging from doing nothing—which was urged on us by some parties—to suspension of the Executive, suspension of the whole body, exclusion of Sinn Fein and exclusion from the process. As I said earlier, the option on which we decided was the least worst one; there were no good options in terms of balancing the magnitude of what we were trying to achieve against the problems that we face at present.

As for the elections, my comments stand. The election date remains unaffected by anything that I said yesterday. The election date was 1 May; it still is 1 May. We will obviously have to keep the date in mind in view of the real world, real politics and real circumstances, but there is no reason at the moment for anyone to feel that anything has changed about the election date. If, before or after it, we are faced with an impasse of the nature that we have at the moment, it is an issue that we shall have to consider at that time or, indeed, before it.

The hon. Gentleman referred to parliamentary procedures, and they will have to be discussed through the usual channels. It is not a matter for me how those procedures are finally decided upon but, if he wishes to speak to us about them, I am more than happy to make sure that Parliament carries out the appropriate scrutiny as it sees fit, given the portfolios that have been added and the extension of powers that I have now found thrust upon me.

I merely wish to make a final comment. Although the hon. Gentleman tries hard on these occasions to show a veneer of bipartisanship, he does not rise to the extent of the project that we are attempting to grapple with. I well remember the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Downing street declaration and the secret talks with the IRA, all of which took place when he was on the Conservative Front Bench and when the IRA was still committing acts of atrocity and was still visibly in the middle of a terrorist war. Because of the magnitude of the prize that was before us, we managed to give support to the then Government—his own party—when they were conducting such talks with the people conducting a murderous and terrible campaign, so a little more grace and support from him would rise to the occasion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while 3,000 people were killed in Northern Ireland during the troubles, as many people have been forced into exile over that period and still remain in exile? Is it not therefore welcome that last week Gerry Adams met in the House Joseph McCloskey, the nephew of Danny McBrearty, to discuss the problem of Mr. McCloskey's exile and to talk about the possibilities of his returning to Derry? Such developments are welcome and Sinn Fein must realise that, if it acts in that way and puts pressure on the Provisional IRA to see that those whom it had placed into exile could return, it will help tremendously towards creating the confidence in Northern Ireland that will allow the process, the Assembly and the Executive to be re-established.

I agree with every word of that. I know how active my hon. Friend has been on this issue, and it is nothing less than terrible and a tragedy that, because of the threat of violence against them, people should feel that they cannot return to the place where they want to stay and where, in many cases, they were born and brought up. I also think that, although much of the recent commentary in the press has concentrated on the so-called spy ring that centres around the charges that have been brought, the most distasteful aspect of the issue is the fact that prison officers and their families, who have every right to think that the threats that they used to think were held over them had long disappeared, once again found themselves in a position of trauma and fear.

And what does the Secretary of State deduce from that?

Will the hon. Gentleman let me continue? For the first time in many years, some people came out in the morning and had to remember to check under their car. It is that type of trauma. I am trying to face up to the problems that the process is facing at present while maintaining the process, which, in my view, gives me and Members of the House the best chance that we have had for decades—indeed, for centuries—to solve this problem. To those who find those obstacles too difficult to overcome and who want to get back to the old ways, I merely say that we tried it the old way for more than eight centuries. If that did not work then, it is not likely to work now.

I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement and welcome the two new Ministers to a portfolio that, among other things, is never dull.

The Minister hopes for a short suspension. What does short mean to him? How might the arrangements change if the suspension is still in place in, let us say, January 2003? He talks of both communities, but will he consider altering the Government's terminology? There are many communities in Northern Ireland. He knows that I often have cause to think that using the concept of two communities simply serves to divide. In that context, can he assure us that all parties will be involved in any talks given the central contribution of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland and the Women's Coalition in particular to breaking past deadlocks?

Will the Minister confirm that the date of the elections will not change even if Ministers are concerned that the consequence of holding them on 1 May will be a less desirable, perhaps a more hardline, outcome, because no one should attempt to gerrymander a particular outcome by changing the date? What specific arrangements will be in place between Westminster and Dublin to ensure that business continues? What are the Minister's plans for Assembly salaries if the suspension is long term?

Finally, does the Minister agree that the best thing that United Kingdom parties can do is to support political solutions rather than to win party political points at a time when Northern Ireland needs our support rather than our rhetoric? In that context, does he hope, as the Liberal Democrats do, that the suspension works and, once the process is back on track, that those who have sounded rather opportunistic this afternoon will not only accept their error of judgment but, more to the point, be willing to alter their strategies to be more supportive of what is clearly a sincere effort by the Government to do the right thing?

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their continuing support throughout this process. He raises a number of points. On consultation, I will consult all parties, including the Alliance and all parties represented in the House, because that is the basis on which a review has to be carried out. I apologise for referring to two communities. I should, of course, refer to the two traditions in the one community in Northern Ireland. Language is sometimes difficult in the context of Northern Ireland politics.

There is no change to the elections. No one is, or should be, frightened of the elections. I do not believe that anyone is frightened. To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, it is not up to us to dismiss the electorate and choose another; it is the electorate who have the right to choose their representatives. However, elections do not happen in a vacuum. We had elections, we had an Executive and we had an Assembly. The reality is that despite the fact that we had elections and a democratically elected Assembly and Executive, they could not work because of the lack of confidence and trust between the partners in power sharing. If that continues indefinitely up to I May, it is not easy to see what can be resolved by having another set of elections.

Although that is all I have to say on that subject, it brings us to the crux of the matter: we cannot go on expecting people to share power with partners who appear to be riding two horses, of violence and democracy. A choice has to be made. Eight years after the beginning of the ceasefire and four years after the agreement, there needs to be a definitive step change in that position so that that ambiguity is removed. Even if that were the case, there would of course be a continual residue of problems with which to deal. No one thinks that we can wave a magic wand and by decree stop all lawbreaking or violence overnight, but we are at a crossroads and I do not believe that it is possible to sustain the power-sharing element of the agreement unless there is some substantial and definitive move in that direction.

Of course the Secretary of State is right not to pass judgment on individuals, but we know certain facts. The Secretary of State may like to confirm the estimates in the press that. as a result of the security breach at Castlereagh, £30 million has been spent on relocating police officers at threat and it is likely to cost twice as much to relocate prison officers who are at threat. Will he confirm also whether the press is accurate in saying that more than 1,000 documents were stolen, most of them from his office? That fact indicates a massive breach of security in the Northern Ireland Office and points to the possibility of gross incompetence in that office. Surely in that situation there must be an arrangement for an effective inquiry to see whether, and in what ways, security has been breached.

The Secretary of State refers to a lack of confidence and trust. Will he bear it mind that in each of the last three years my party went into an Administration on an inclusive basis and on the basis of promises and undertakings given to us, and each time those promises were broken and Sinn Fein and the republican movement failed to deliver? Will he also reflect on his curious use of the term "power sharing", in which he thinks only of Sinn Fein? There are others, and in this matter it is wrong of him to overlook the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party.

The Secretary of State had options, and the demand for, or suggestion of exclusion, which would have been fair, did not come from Unionists alone. As he knows, it was supported by the Alliance party, which has links with the Liberal Democrats, and we are glad that the Alliance party displayed that courage. The Secretary of State is aware that support for exclusion would have extended beyond that point.

There is a point at which confidence is needed elsewhere too. In July, the Secretary of State said that he was showing republicans the yellow card. People noticed that the red card did not appear in circumstances in which the man in the street thought that it would have been appropriate. The Secretary of State has to explain why he funked it, because in the view of the man in the street that is precisely what happened: the Secretary of State decided that he would sacrifice the political process for fear of what might happen to the cessation of military operations declared by the IRA.

On the first point, I cannot confirm the press speculation about the costs, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that they are considerable—they are huge. Measures have to be taken to protect the police and, perhaps, prison officers who may be vulnerable after the events at Castlereagh. Apart from the anguish that it causes those families, that is a huge diversion of resources from the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland. It is tens of millions of pounds that could be devoted to the regeneration of inner-city or outer-city areas, to the health service and so on.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the number of documents that were stolen. From what the police have told me, I understand that his estimate is not far off. He said that we have to examine what is being done at Castlereagh, among other things. I can tell him that the security service has already agreed to send a team to conduct an independent and authoritative review of security in the Department. The team will make recommendations for the future when all is known about the events that led to the criminal charges. It will also audit security practice generally.

I do not want to go into further detail because I do not want in any way to impinge on judicial proceedings, but I can tell the House that, before these events, certain steps had been taken on the advice of security authorities. They were obviously ineffective in this case, whoever is guilty, and I do not prejudge that question.

This is a serious blow, and as I said earlier, although the matter that has made the headlines is the retrieval of documents for use by others and whether that may have put them at an advantage in the political process—I do not prejudge that question either—I find the fact that prison officers may be under threat more disturbing than anything else.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the exclusion motion. I hear what he says, and it is not a matter that leaves me unmoved, precisely because I know the courage and, above all, endurance that he has shown by staying in the Assembly for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. I understand that fully. I say only that that these are not easy judgments to make.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Alliance party. I understand that it would have been prepared to support an exclusion motion had I put one before the Assembly—although I do not think that such a motion would have passed; the SDLP made it clear that it would not support it. Nevertheless, the fact that the Alliance party was prepared to support it shows that a significant change is taking place. The Women's Coalition would not support exclusion, but was apparently prepared to support suspension of the Executive rather than of the Assembly as a whole. No one should think that no change of opinion is occurring within the Assembly on these matters.

There is lack of confidence on both sides. People ask me, "Are the Unionists really committed to this?", but the evidence of the endurance shown over the years by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Assembly gives the lie to any claim that there are no Unionists who are prepared to put the whole of Northern Ireland first, rather than their party. Their commitment should be a sign of confidence to the whole community.

I welcome the two new Ministers on what is, for me, an especially sad day. In another place at another time, more than 30 years ago, I saw a power sharing arrangement dissolved in the same way. It took more than 30 years to re-establish such an arrangement, yet this is the fourth suspension in four years.

I welcome and agree entirely with the Secretary of State's statement that the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, in all its aspects, is the only way forward. I agree also that if devolution is to be workable and durable, there must be trust—but let us not enter a state of denial when looking at where the lack of trust lies. Of course Sinn Fein has broken faith with everybody, not least with those of us in the nationalist community who have insisted and will continue to insist on inclusivity. Sinn Fein has to rid itself of the discredited dual strategy and commit itself to democratic, peaceful means.

Another example of lack of trust is the view in the nationalist community that not all Ulster Unionists are in favour of inclusive government and partnership politics. That is not a criticism of those in the Ulster Unionist party who are in favour of those things, but if we are to solve the problem it is right to specify that lack of trust. A third example of lack of trust is that many in the Unionist and nationalist communities wonder in what type of an arrangement two Ministers can have as their policy the destruction of the very agreement from which they derive their ministerial office—[Interruption.] DUP members are abusing it.

Those three elements will have to be addressed if we are to re-establish devolution. Unless we find answers, we will not be able to reinstate devolution in the way that is necessary to make the full agreement work.

The hon. Gentleman points to the complexity of addressing even that limited question of trust within the limited area of power sharing. I merely say that many things undermine trust—for example, the ongoing murderous campaign of loyalists, which will be combated. However, because they are not partners in power sharing, their campaign does not necessarily undermine power sharing. Many Unionists are sceptical, but because other Unionists are involved in the partnership, that scepticism does not, in itself, undermine power sharing.

The problem is the element of concern about the partners in the power sharing from the republican movement—Sinn Fein. If Sinn Fein is thought to be involved in an ambiguous dual-track strategy, its involvement in power sharing makes that far more important in undermining power sharing. That is why I have emphasised that, among all the issues that affect confidence, we have to address that one perhaps more keenly than any of the others.

May I join other Members in welcoming the two new members of the Northern Ireland Office ministerial team? I assure the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and I are happy to meet our successors in office to talk over the issues that affect those Departments.

I also join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of terrorism. Members on this Bench, at whichever end they sit, will not soften that criticism one iota for loyalist terrorists. We consider their activities despicable, murderous and foul, and will take every opportunity to say so. May I disabuse the Secretary of State of the notion that the problems that affect the process are confined to a narrow area? Wide-ranging opposition within the Unionist community is affecting Unionist trust in the whole process. Rather than the Secretary of State undertaking an idle review with yesterday's men, who cannot deliver, is it not time for him to go to the people and allow the electorate to speak? Let politicians get a fresh mandate and enter negotiations for stable political structures in Northern Ireland.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not question at all—indeed, I am well aware of—his condemnation of all violence and murder wherever it originates, including on the loyalist side. I also thank him for saying that his ministerial colleagues are willing to discuss matters with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not disagree that if trust is badly affected in one area it is liable to affect a range of areas. These things develop; we get an understanding—an increasing or decreasing trust—as time goes on, just as the hon. Gentleman's own policies and awareness of Realpolitik have developed. I was glad that he shared a table, if not words, with Martin McGuinness the other night. I noticed that he said clearly that if Sinn Fein has the mandate that we expect it to have after an election, that is a reality that has to be taken into account. I always welcome pragmatism, however late it is, and will engage with him.

As for the report of the political death of the First Minister, I am afraid that not only is it greatly exaggerated, but I have read about it so often that I never take it for granted, even when it is posted in the newspapers in Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to be honest and recognise the breakdown of trust that has led the Government to take action, not least since one party believes, or says it does, in a political way forward, but does not recognise the need to engage with a civil police service? Does he also accept that we must pick up the pieces and consider how that trust can be rebuilt? Will he say how he and his team will involve in that process many people both elected representatives in Northern Ireland and those who have played their part in the Northern Ireland Policing Board and other commissions that have been set up following the Good Friday agreement—so that elements of trust that have been lost can start to be regained?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, in the new Northern Ireland, the efforts that we are making—which involve considerable pain for those who were previously associated with the RUC—to create a new, reformed, revitalised, community-based, effective police service that has cross-community support deserve to be rewarded by the participation of those who have been demanding precisely that for eight decades. I do not think that one can demand rights but not face up to one's responsibilities. Sinn Fein will eventually have to face up to that.

It is not for me to tell Gerry Adams how to lead Sinn Fein, but since he continually tells me how to do my job, it might be worth saying that what has happened has handicapped not only this process and power sharing but Sinn Fein itself. Its alleged association with violence in these cases is a ball and chain around the feet of a political party that has received further and further support precisely because it was moving into the political arena and away from violence. For that reason, as well as the reason that we shall not be able to sustain the future of power sharing in Northern Ireland unless Sinn Fein shifts, it would be as well to do so.

I agree that we need to revitalise support for the agreement across the community, beyond the political parties. We have let that slip. It is not easy to rejuvenate it. It is common to all peace processes of this nature that, after the initial euphoria, it is the aficionados who tend to become involved. I will gladly consider any ideas in that direction.

In the light of the remarks that the Secretary of State has just made about Sinn Fein, what possible justification is there for continuing the special facilities that its members have in this House? Given that they will not play a proper part as Members of Parliament, should not their privileged access to this place be suspended, at least during the suspension of the Assembly?

First, that is a matter for the House. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) certainly feels that it has already offered some advantages—Mr. McCloskey met Gerry Adams here the other day. I sincerely hope that they manage to resolve the problem.

Sometimes, the apparently small things move the process forward. We have spent a lot of time, quite correctly, on the big issues such as Castlereagh, Colombia, and so on, but it should not go unnoticed, for instance, that Martin McGuinness said on Remembrance day that we should all respect the right of the British to remember the dead—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen can throw that back in his face if they like, but I welcome that as a recognition of our failings on these matters. I welcome the fact that Alex Maskey, the Sinn Fein Mayor of Belfast, laid a wreath at the Somme. I welcome the fact that an alleged leading member of the Provisional IRA, Martin Meehan, said this morning that, in his opinion, the war had been over for some time. I just wish that mixed messages were not sent out and that there was no ambiguity in telling us that violence was in the past. If that were done and done definitively with clarity and backed by action, we would find power sharing a bit easier in the future than it has been in the past.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's calm and reasoned approach. Can we reiterate very strongly the message that exclusion in Northern Ireland has always been easy and that it is inclusion that has been so difficult? Despite the sad and unnecessary rise in violence perpetrated by both Unionists and republicans in recent months, we need to remember that long-term progress has been rather good and that the atrocities that we used to experience weekly no longer disfigure that society. It would be very nice if all the paramilitary groups could wind themselves up and go away over the next few months—we must never lose sight of that message—but we need to take a long-term view and recognise where we have come from, that we are making progress and that inclusion is vital.

My hon. Friend is right that we need to keep a sense of perspective about where we are in Northern Ireland, even on such sensitive issues as law and order. In some areas, there has been a considerable increase over the past two years in disorder on the streets, for instance, as against what went on in the two years previously. However, there has also been a continual reduction over the years—in some ways a dramatic one—in the number of murders in Northern Ireland.

On drugs, I want to see those on the streets dealing in drugs lifted and put where they should be—behind bars. I know that that is an ambition shared by the Chief Constable. Although it is a problem of great concern in Northern Ireland, the rate of drugs misuse in Northern Ireland is estimated, in terms of arrests and convictions, at one eighth the rate in Scotland. A sense of perspective is necessary. Similarly, when we consider the resources that we put into dealing with the matter, yes, they are overstretched, but there are three times as many police per head in Northern Ireland as there are in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the position is about the same as regards resources.

We do combat the problems. It is not always easy to suffer the minutes and to watch the hours, but my hon. Friend is right: when we look at the hours, the years and the decades, there has been a significant move forward for people in Northern Ireland.

Was it really wise to suspend? Does not the Secretary of State understand that for very many people it is deeply offensive that the constitutional parties, whether nationalist or Unionist, in Northern Ireland were penalised through no fault of their own? Is it not solely and exclusively the fault of Sinn Fein-IRA because of their violent activity? Will the Secretary of State now say unequivocally that the reason the power-sharing Executive and the Assembly have been suspended and are at breaking point is Sinn Fein-IRA's activities, and theirs alone?

I have already made known my position on suspension. Yes, I do realise the burden, annoyance and frustrations of those who feel that they have done very little and yet are having their commitment and capacity to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland taken away by suspension. I have also made it plain, as somebody who has supported devolution all my life—unlike most of the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches, I might say—that I would have preferred not to suspend, but I have given my reasons for that. The right hon. Gentleman will not have missed the fact that some of people who he says were so pained at being suspended had actually resigned last week, so that was slightly out of my hands.

As regards the future, I am making judgments on these cases. I do not claim that they are infallible judgments or that they are necessarily right. They are my political judgments. They are made in an attempt to sustain the whole process on an inclusive basis, with the potential to resolve decades-long, generations-long and in some cases centuries-long problems, violence and conflict. If we look over the past five or 10 years, there is enough evidence there that up to this point that judgment has proved correct. What we need now is a substantive indication, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from Sinn Fein that that judgment has been correct—that the trust that we placed in the republican movement and its willingness to move to the democratic resolution of problems and away from violence, as long as we provided democracy, justice and opportunity for them, was right. That is the challenge facing us over the next few months.

I recognise that my right hon. Friend had little alternative but to do what he has done. Is it not a fact that the present situation will only cause pleasure to those who opposed and undermined the Good Friday agreement from the very start? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will work closely with the Irish Government during the time the Assembly is suspended, and that it is extremely important that the two Governments should work together? Is it not a fact that Sinn Fein must take some responsibility for playing right into the hands of those who opposed the agreement from the beginning?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I will be working closely with the Irish Government on the matter. May I say how much I welcome the statement yesterday making it clear that there had been no ambiguity in the choice between violence and democracy? It was a statement not just from the Prime Minister of this country, but from the Taoiseach—the Prime Minister of Ireland. It was an indication of how strongly he and the Irish Government feel about the position. I look forward to working with them, and I greatly welcome their support and their efforts.

What exactly does the Secretary of State think that IRA-Sinn Fein intended to do with lists of the home addresses of prison officers and police officers, together with lists of which of them had and had not been issued with firearms for their personal protection? Why does he think that the IRA-Sinn Fein cell responsible for this latest disgraceful episode described the Prime Minister with two words, one of which was "naïve"?

As someone who always closely considers the evidence, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspaper, although since I am not allowed to reveal any secrets, I cannot contradict anything that he said. On the intentions of the perpetrators of the incident, I cannot prejudge whether the IRA or somebody else was responsible. I can only refer him to the statements that I have been making publicly as well as privately for a considerable time, saying that a ceasefire, even when I judge it in the round to be intact, is not the point. The point is that, if people are on ceasefire but are maintaining a capability in terrorist terms that could be used to break a ceasefire in the long run, they will destroy the confidence that is necessary for power sharing. I think that that answers his question.

rose—

Order. We must now move on to the next business.

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on A-level grading.

As the House will know, following the publication of examination results in summer this year, there have been concerns about the grading of A-level and AS-level examinations and about the way in which exam standards are set and maintained. I recognise the anxiety and uncertainty that that has caused. Students have been left unsure whether their grades in A-levels and AS-levels this year accurately reflect the standard of their work. On behalf of the education service, I repeat my apology to all the students who have been affected. My responsibility throughout has been to ensure that the concerns are carefully and thoroughly investigated, that the recommendations are acted on as rapidly as possible and that clear action is taken to avoid this situation ever arising again.

Early last month, headteachers' representatives and some examiners expressed concerns about the grading of the work of some students in this year's A-level and AS-level examinations. The complaints focused in particular on changes that had been made to grade boundaries in some of the papers. Given the seriousness of the allegations, on 19 September I set up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools. His interim report, which was published on 27 September, identified weaknesses in the way in which the exams had been assessed this year, and recommended a process of regrading. That work has now been completed. Letters went last night from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to all students on its records whose grades had been revised. Since 10 o'clock this morning, a UCAS helpline has been in operation.

Mike Tomlinson announced this morning that a total of 9,800 candidate entries have had unit grades raised. All the adjustments relate to the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board. In the majority of cases, they have not resulted in a change to overall grades, but 1,945 candidates have had their overall grades raised—733 for AS-levels and 1,212 for A2 results.

UCAS holds a record on 1,089 of those students, of whom 689 are already in their first-choice university, although a small number are not on their first-choice course. A further 232 had no offer from their first or second-choice universities and are therefore unlikely to be affected by a grade change. On current UCAS estimates, that leaves about 168 students who may be eligible to transfer university. UCAS has told us today that there are no more than eight possible new students for any single university.

May I briefly outline the action that the 168 students need to take? Students who think that they may be eligible to move institution are being advised to contact their preferred university or college. Universities have been advised by their representative body, Universities UK, to honour all offers made to students before the publication of A-level results in August, and I am confident that they will do that. As I said on 27 September, the fact that institutions have already admitted their full quota of students for this year may mean that students who wish to transfer will be offered places for next year rather than this year. Clearly, the fact that the numbers are much lower than some speculated will make matters much more manageable. Universities and colleges have agreed to make final decisions no later than 31 October. Universities and students will not be disadvantaged financially if the latter move university due to regrading.

In his report of 27 September, Mike Tomlinson also gave his preliminary views on what had gone wrong. In particular, the QCA had not issued guidance on the attainment expected for a specific grade in individual papers. It had not provided a clear, consistent view of the standard required to ensure the maintenance of the overall GCE A-level standard. In addition, although AS units were piloted, A2 units were not.

I also asked Mike Tomlinson to investigate allegations that external pressure had been put on examining boards to lower the number of passes to protect against the allegation of lowering standards. Mike Tomlinson concluded that Ministers and the Department had applied no such pressure. He further concluded that officers at QCA had acted within their guidelines, but went on to say that

"on the evidence available, the actions of the boards during the grading exercise arose from the pressure they perceived that they were under from the QCA both to maintain the standard and achieve an outcome which was more or less in line with the results in 2001".

On 27 September, I decided that the confidence of the examining boards and the headteacher representatives in the QCA's leadership was damaged and that its future would be best served by a new chairman. We shall shortly announce the name of a new interim chair.

I recognise that a major task for the QCA and my Department is rebuilding confidence in the QCA and our examination system. Ken Boston. the new chief executive of the QCA, has announced a timetable for implementing the recommendations in Mike Tomlinson's report. By the end of October, there will be additional guidance on AS and A2 standards. By mid-November, further work on the statistical issues that underlie assessment and a revised code of practice for the conduct of the process will be completed. The QCA will also put in place improved communications with all partners. Current students on AS and A2 courses can be reassured by those actions that marking and grading standards in 2003 will be robust.

Ken Boston has also announced that he will set up an examinations taskforce. Its job will be to oversee the effective delivery of the AS and A2 exams in January and July 2003. It meets for the first time on Friday and will comprise representatives of headteachers as well as the exam boards. I welcome that decisive action.

Mike Tomlinson's report also provided wider lessons for the way in which the Government plan and implement such major changes. The Department will act on those lessons. Mike Tomlinson will now tackle the second part of his remit: to review more generally the arrangements for setting, maintaining and judging A-level standards. He will report to me and the QCA in November.

Today's announcements are supported by the headteacher and teacher organisations, including those who raised the original concerns. All students who took examinations this year can be confident that the regrading process has been independent and fair.

I recognise the importance of exams as a means of measuring achievement and giving young people a currency for higher education and the world of work. It is therefore especially important that our assessment system is fair, transparent and efficient.

Although it is important to acknowledge this year's difficulties, it is also important to remember that the principles behind Curriculum 2000 were wholeheartedly endorsed. That must not be lost.

Mike Tomlinson has given us a clear way forward for re-establishing confidence in the A-level system, and for ensuring that standards are clear. I hope that this will enable us to avoid the sterile annual debate about exam standards, when better results should be a cause of celebration for young people and their teachers.

I want to put on record my thanks to all those in the education service who brought the original concerns to our attention. Their co-operation in and approval of the process that we have undergone have been crucial. I am also grateful to UCAS and Universities UK for their helpful and constructive approach. Finally, I would like to thank Mike Tomlinson and his team for the speed of their actions, their thoroughness and their integrity.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement, and I add my thanks to Mike Tomlinson for the work that he has had to do.

Today's announcement of the A-level regradings represents one more step in what has been the worst crisis ever to affect the exam system in this country—a crisis made worse by the staggeringly inept way in which it has been handled by the Secretary of State and her Department. Tens of thousands of students have had months of not knowing whether their grades were mis-marked. Two thousand families now know that they were fiddled out of the proper marks, and 88,000 others have been severely disappointed today, all because Ministers insisted, against the advice of their officials, on introducing the new A-level system too fast and too soon. Mike Tomlinson described that system as an "accident waiting to happen". The accident happened, and the Secretary of State is still trying to evade responsibility.

The root of this fiasco has been political interference in the exam system. I am afraid that nothing in the Secretary of State's statement suggests that she is prepared to reduce the degree of political meddling in the details of education, which are best left to heads, teachers and examiners. In her statement, she confirms that officers at the QCA had acted within their guidelines. If she believes that, why did she sack the QCA's chairman, Sir William Stubbs? Will she admit to the House now that he was a convenient scapegoat, used to take the pressure off Ministers? Will she also tell us why Sir William would have put pressure on exam boards to downgrade the marks if he did not believe that he was serving the interests of his political masters? It is not in the interests of the exam boards or of the QCA to depress the grades. It might, however, be in the interests of Ministers to do so, if they were worried about accusations of dumbing down.

So let us have the Secretary of State's explanation of why Sir William acted as she has accused him of doing. Interestingly, the Secretary of State said in her statement that she had sacked Sir William not because he had put pressure on the exam boards, but because the boards perceived that they were under pressure from the QCA. Might it have been possible that Sir William perceived that he was under pressure from Ministers?

While we are on the subject of the QCA, will the Secretary of State finally commit to making it fully independent of the Government? The main job for her, or her successor, is to restore confidence in the exam system. That will not be achieved until it is completely taken away from political interference. If the Government were to introduce legislation in the next Session to achieve that, we would give it a fair wind.

On the exam boards, why does the Secretary of State think that only one board has been implicated in this problem? What did OCR do, under this perceived pressure from the QCA, that the other boards failed to do? How does she propose to deal with the 2,000 students who have suffered? She says that students will not be financially disadvantaged. Will she tell the House what the compensation package will cover? Will she also make it clear what she will do for the other 88,000 students who will be feeling angry and disappointed today because they have not been regraded? [Interruption.] Ministers say that those students got the right grades. I would recommend that they find the time later to visit the BBC website and read the comments of some of the students who have been affected. The words "whitewash" and "sham" appear frequently. Many of those students may want their papers re-marked, not regraded, but their schools will be put off by the cost. Will the Government do the decent thing and pay for any re-marking that is demanded by those students?

Can the Secretary of State now clear up why an AS-level is worth 50 per cent of the marks when the exam board says that it constitutes less than half the work? The authorities said that the schools misunderstood the situation, which is a real insult to thousands of heads and teachers. Can she understand why two exams, each of which received 50 per cent. of the marks, might be regarded by reasonable people as being of equal weight?

The Secretary of State said that she has asked Mike Tomlinson to produce another report by next month. Will she now agree to a fuller review, completely independent of the Government, to look into the whole future of A-levels? Without that, the system will continue to fall under suspicion. The QCA's own task force will not be enough because by her actions the QCA has been proved to be simply an arm of Government.

The Secretary of State eventually apologised for the damage that the scandal has caused. For 50 years, A-levels served young people well, with all concerned regarding them as the gold standard for exams. Her place in history is secure as the Minister who destroyed that gold standard. No one doubts her integrity, her decency and her good intentions—but with that integrity and decency she has set up a system that has not worked, she has obstinately ignored advice that it would not work, she has tried to evade personal responsibility for the fiasco and she has failed to take the first step towards restoring confidence in the exam system, which is for her to resign.

I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has just said that he wished that more students had received incorrect results. [Interruption.] That is essentially what he said. All those students who now know that the results they received in August were accurate should be pleased by that. The hon. Gentleman said that he wished that more had found out today that they had been given inaccurate results in August. That is not my view. The hon. Gentleman has spent so much time jumping on every passing bandwagon in the past few weeks that he has forgotten to read the reports that Mike Tomlinson has produced.

Let us be clear about what Mike Tomlinson said. Political interference in the exam system is a serious allegation. I said when I gave my first statement on the issue that not only had no political interference ever taken place under Labour Ministers but that I believed that it had never taken place under any Conservative Minister. Even if the Liberal Democrats were ever to get to be Education Ministers—[Interruption.] That is going too far and I withdraw that comment. Seriously, I believe that politicians are unanimous on the issue and not one of us—we are all committed to the education of our children—would dream of instructing the chief executive or the chairman of the QCA to fiddle the results. We did not. I had the decency to say that the hon. Gentleman and his party would not have done that, but he did not have the decency to say that we did not. Mike Tomlinson, who is impartial, has said that. Nobody accused us of doing so—not the Headmasters and Mistresses Conference, the Secondary Heads Association, or any of the other head teachers associations. Bill Stubbs said that there was no political interference. The allegations came from elsewhere, but Mike Tomlinson said, in any form of words that he could find, that there was no evidence, written or verbal, and no allegation that Ministers interfered. He concluded that there was no interference.

The problem now is not that you do not believe us or the integrity of our profession, but that you do not believe Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools. On that you rest, and it is up to you to justify it—

Order. The Secretary of State has forgotten herself for a moment. She must use the correct parliamentary language.

Regrade her.

Only from A up to A*.

The hon. Member for Ashford spoke of an accident waiting to happen. Mike Tomlinson did say that in the press conference on 27 September. The position was that there were no subject-specific grade criteria and no clear, consistent view about the standard required. The statistical and practical issues had not been fully worked through. All those are responsibilities of the QCA. Because that infrastructure was not in place, it was, as Mike Tomlinson said, an accident waiting to happen. He also said that the chief executives of the three examining bodies believed that they were being put under further pressure. The three inadequacies in the infrastructure and the perceived pressure that I have described account for what went wrong this year.

I come now to the matter of timing. Mike Tomlinson said that the structure had been introduced too quickly, and I have said all along that I accept every one of his recommendations. I shall act on them, but I want to clarify the record in respect of the timing.

When this Government were elected in 1997, A and AS examinations had been consulted on already by the previous Administration. Those examinations derived from a report by Ron Dearing—an excellent man, and the report was not bad either. In those days, the Tories were committed to AS-levels. They want to withdraw them now, but that is a different matter.

We decided in 1997 to consult further on the matter. The previous Conservative Government might have introduced their proposals in 1997, but we delayed until 1999. We then consulted further. After that further consultation, we postponed the implementation of A and AS-level exams for a further year, to 2000. By that time, four years had passed since the publication of Ron Dearing's report on the wider curriculum for 16 to 18-year-olds.

I accept Mike Tomlinson's contention that a delay of three years rather than two might have prevented some problems. We intend to learn from that, but I want to say two things in that regard. We delayed introduction for two years after 1997 because of the results of consultation. No plea to delay introduction by another year was made to us, either in papers or correspondence from the QCA or as part of the consultation, and neither was any such plea made to us by any organisation representing head teachers. However, I accept Mike Tomlinson's report and, as I said in my statement, I believe that it is something of which Government should take note.

I come now to the important questions of compensation for students, and the QCA. Some students have been inconvenienced financially and made poorer by the extra accommodation, tuition and travel costs incurred when they chose to change universities. They will be reimbursed by a special fund being set up by my Department.

As for the QCA, the House should recall that it was set up by the previous Administration. Its impartiality has served the country well, but I accept that the time may have come when the public—and, more importantly, teachers, parents and students—want added safeguards to ensure that impartiality. That is why I welcome the decision by Ken Boston, in whom I have the greatest confidence, to establish what I might call a stakeholder body, involving head teachers and their representatives, to oversee the examinations to be held next January and June. Mike Tomlinson will monitor that body's work overall, and it will provide an added safeguard for next year's results.

However, Mike Tomlinson may say in November that further safeguards are needed, and he might make proposals to that effect. If so, we will adopt them. The Government have no interest in doing anything other than ensuring that the increased standards achieved by pupils, students and teachers over the past five years are supported by a robust examination system.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which she has responded to a problem that has been very difficult for the Government. However, will she confirm that the staff at OCR has been completely absolved from any blame? That is important for me, as many of them are my constituents, and OCR is based in my constituency.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's constituency interest in that. Of course, OCR is an independent body, and it is for its members to read and absorb Mike Tomlinson's report. However, that report went no further than to examine the actions of OCR's chief executive and senior examiners. I hope that my hon. Friend can take some assurance from that, although I leave that to her sound judgment.

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sighting of her statement and for her courage in coming to the House to deliver it.

Liberal Democrats remain committed to the A and AS process, although we accept Mike Tomlinson's comment that it was rushed and that the extra year would have made a significant difference. We also believe that it is essential that the QCA is not simply reformed but abolished in its current form and that we have an examination watchdog that is totally independent of the Department for Education and Skills. Without that, everything else will be considered a fudge.

We have had two months of sheer hell affecting tens of thousands of young people who were subjected to experimentation at every level of their school life, their teachers, their further education college lecturers and their parents. In that time, our examination system has become the laughing stock of Europe and, indeed, the world. Yet now it appears that nothing happened and that all is well. It appears that either the shy and retiring Sir William Stubbs panicked when he discovered that this year's results were 0.3 per cent. out of line with his predictions and forced the exam boards to redraw the grade boundaries or that this year's students at AS and A2-level had a universal dip in performance, not when they sat their exams, handed in their course work or when their work was marked, but when their papers were graded. That is the sum comment of the Secretary of State today.

Far from restoring confidence, today's statement merely adds to the belief that the dead hand of Government was behind this déâcle. We are delighted that 1,953 students have received positive regradings today, but tens of thousands have been left wondering "what if?" Is the Secretary of State prepared to publish the numbers of students who would have gained different grades on the original grade boundaries? That set of statistics is crucial in determining where the fiddling went on.

At the heart of this fiasco is the question of standards, particularly that of maintaining the gold standard at A-level. Does the Secretary of State accept that simply using the word "standards" again and again without defining what it means has contributed in large part to the chaos? Does she agree with the QCA, which clearly thought that it meant limiting the number of students achieving certain grades, or does she agree with the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who told the QCA last week that this definition

"places a block on talent and ambition"?

The Government are right to maintain standards vigorously but they have no right whatever to determine how many students meet those standards. However, that is the impression that is abroad this year.

This statement speaks volumes. It speaks of a Secretary of State who panics every time bad news arrives and does not have the guts to say to No. 10 that running scared of criticism is no way to run a Government. Does she accept that No. 10 would not sanction charges of grade inflation, and that is what really lies behind this sorry saga? Will she confirm that in her Department's media plan, agreed with No. 10, deflecting accusations of grade inflation came near the top of the list of priorities for July and August? Will she confirm that the press releases issued on 14 August by QCA and 15 August by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), along with numerous articles about gold standards, were all planned in advance to head off criticism of grade inflation? Will she admit that her Department created such a climate of paranoia over maintaining the gold standard that this year's fiasco became inevitable?

In short, the Secretary of State is responsible for this year's A-level fiasco and she must apologise to the 90,000 students who feel that they have cheated.

I suppose that one of the advantages, or disadvantages, of being in perpetual opposition is that one can change one's mind about six times a day. To be honest, in the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman has been changing his mind between the "Today" programme and "World at One", but so be it.

On the grading question, I am a mite cross with the hon. Gentleman at this point in time. Let us just think about it. In August, we were accused of grade inflation. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who speaks for the Conservatives, went on the "Today" programme followed by "World at One" to say the same thing, unlike the Liberal Democrats, and I grant him that—that given that A-level grades had improved, we must immediately have a thorough inquiry into the exam system. He did not congratulate the students and teachers on working harder and learning more effectively; he said that there must be something wrong with the system because the results had improved. Mike Tomlinson actually reports that at the root of the problem, at every level of society, is an unwillingness to believe that, year on year, our children can learn more effectively, students can get better and teachers can teach more effectively. Having heard that in August, in September the Government were accused of grade deflation. All of a sudden, rather than making the exams easier, to get better results, we had made the exams more difficult to get the grades lower. That is the complexity of the situation.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is usually generous of spirit and, with Labour Members, he usually gives due recognition to the achievements of youngsters in August when the results are announced. He always does so. He will know, therefore, that maintaining that their grades are due to the fact that they had worked harder and achieved more is a pretty difficult task. That is why we are prepared to assure the nation that there has been no political interference in the setting of grade boundaries or anything else; it is no more and no less than the result of the hard work of our teachers and pupils.

What is sad about what the Opposition spokesman and the hon. Gentleman have been saying today is that we set up an independent inquiry and, in effect, they have both said that they do not trust its results. They must think about the message that that gives to head teachers, parents and students. Both the hon. Gentlemen are still saying that there has been political interference in the setting of exam grades this year. There has not been—no evidence of that has been found—and while the Labour party is in power, there never will be. I also repeat that I do not believe that there ever would be were any other party in power.

Opposition Members have a choice. They can continue to play politics with that accusation or they can think carefully about the implications that it has for teachers and the students who are now studying for next year's examinations. No matter whether hon. Members believe us or Mike Tomlinson, the key thing about the report today is that every single organisation of head teachers that brought the original complaint, both from the maintained and the independent sectors, has signed up to say that the process undergone during the past few weeks has been robust, that they trust it, that it is fair, that they think that students now have the right grades and that they want to get on with teaching and learning. I back them. I certainly do not back the hon. Member for Ashford.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Could we please have shorter questions and, hopefully, shorter answers too? I call the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).

Does my right hon. Friend yet have enough information at her disposal to determine whether the papers that were wrongly marked were in one geographical area, or were spread about? Has she been able to draw any conclusions from that data yet?

No, I have not. The list of units—we must remember that they are units and not full subjects—were published and have again been published today for anyone who wishes to look at them. It would depend on which schools in which geographical areas tended to choose OCR as an examining body. I cannot give my hon. Friend a geographical make-up, but all the units that were regraded were from OCR, not from the other two examining bodies.

Does the Secretary of State now accept with the benefit of hindsight that, despite the delay and the consultation, this problem had its origins in the way in which AS-levels were introduced, when the first warnings of grading problems were issued? Obviously, she has only a few weeks to ensure the credibility of next year's system, but when she considers her longer term duty of restoring the reputation and status of A-levels will she no longer rule out abandoning the AS experiment, which has contributed to this problem and caused endless other problems inside schools too?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly well versed in the matter given his former post. For the record, AS-levels, which used to be a 40:60 not a 50:50 split, emanated from the discussion document published by the Conservative Government and Ron Dearing. When we took power, we consulted. At the time, it was a 40:60 split, but it was to count for 50 per cent. of the marks. During the consultation, people thought that that system was too complicated and we came up with a 50:50 split. Interestingly, that was widely accepted by schools.

I accept that the technical implementation of that 50:50 split has caused difficulties. One thing that Mike Tomlinson said was that he would have expected the QCA to study a number of different ways to ensure that the statistical processes for getting that split were robust. He did not say—I specifically asked him this because of course, I would want to consider it—that inherent in a 50:50 split is an inability to get it right. He said that more statistical modelling needed to take place. The new chief executive of the QCA has agreed to undertake that.

What schools need now is certainty. Whatever is for the long term, I want to give them an assurance that no further changes will be made to the syllabuses—to what pupils learn and what they teach—without timely consideration and due warning—that is, not in the foreseeable future.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that parents, teachers and students will contrast the dignified, decisive and, today, feisty way in which she has responded with the squalid and childish response of those on the Opposition Front Bench? When she is considering these matters further, will she give some thought to whether the introduction of an international baccalaureate, or something similar, might in the long term help to overcome some of the problems?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. An interesting debate has been going on in education circles for as long as I can remember about the baccalaureate and it has now been put in the public domain, and rightly so. It is important to give assurances, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I do not want schools or teachers to go away from any debate in the House thinking that the system is about to change again. If my hon. Friend means by a baccalaureate some sort of overarching qualification in which we can recognise both the study of some subjects in depths, which are A-levels, and that broader curriculum, that is something in which I personally and the Government have been interested. I put on the record that that is for the long term, not the immediate term. What schools want to know most of all now is that there will be no immediate changes. I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution, however. That is a debate that the education service and this House should continue.

Is an AS-level half an A-level or not?

There are six modules in an A-level: three at AS-level and three at A2. AS-levels count for half an A-level. They are recorded in the performance tables as such. Due to the linear nature of some subjects, it was deemed that the first year six, usually the AS-levels, would be marginally easier than the old A-level standard. To maintain that standard, therefore, the second year had to be marginally more difficult than the A-level standard. That is where the difficulty lies. What is clear is that the overall standard of AS and A2 is the same as previous A-level standards.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the apology that she has issued to students this evening—a refreshing change, to which Opposition Members are obviously not used. I have had inquiries from only two students in my constituency. Given the hype raised by the battle cry of "political interference" and "interfering" from the Opposition parties, I would have expected more. Is it not the case that those battle cries do not undermine the Government in the way that Opposition parties clearly intend, but undermine those students who are now facing difficulties? Should we not now focus on how to ensure that the students affected get the help that they need quickly and how to announce a robust system to the House in the next eight weeks, so that we can have clarity for next year's exam results?

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the details that I have been able to give the House today about the students—just under 200—who are eligible to change university, the procedures for this year's examinations, the changes we shall make and the support we shall give reassure her.

Criticisms were made today about acting precipitately—acting too quickly or too slowly are both accusations that have been made over the past few weeks. What I have tried to do during the past few weeks was actually to deal with the problem that arose at the start of September. This is the first occasion on which I have made any political comment, either party or otherwise, or attacked anybody. While others have been doing that over the past few weeks, I have been busy getting on with solving the problem that arose. I hope that today I have been able to lay it to rest.

I am surprised that the Secretary of State should conspicuously have failed to recognise the work of many individual staff at the OCR, many of whom may be my constituents who work in Cambridge, or those of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). If the Secretary of State persists in scapegoating the QCA and the OCR, they will recollect that she and Ministers were responsible for insisting that 40 per cent. of the work at AS-level should be counted as half an A-level, for the botched implementation of the AS-level in the first level and for the ill-advised assessment review in 2001.

I think that I have already answered the latter points. I am certain that, as regards the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he misheard, rather than deliberately misunderstood; none of the comments that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) were meant to imply any criticism of staff at OCR. I said, and I say again, that OCR will read the report. I reassured my hon. Friend that Mike Tomlinson's comments had been at chief executive and senior adviser level. To reassure the hon. Gentleman about his constituents who work at OCR in whatever capacity, I have made no comments about what they have done; 1 have referred them to Mike Tomlinson's report and I am happy to say that again.

Perhaps one of the saddest aspects is the cloud that has hung over all A-level results, so will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the tens of thousands of successful A-level students and pay tribute to the work of their teachers and schools?

Of course.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) talked about the generation that had been experimented on, but they have also achieved more than any previous generation at each of their examination stages. I congratulate them and their teachers, parents and families for supporting them. Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that the number of students who were today notified of changes in their results was lower than we might have expected.

Does the Minister understand that one of the reasons why her whitewash today will not wash is that too many of us have direct personal experience of this fiasco? My daughter, whose AS-level grades were affected, rang me today from her school to express the anger felt by her teachers and friends about the totally inadequate response comprised by the report and the Minister's statement today. It ducks the major issue. Does she not understand that only comprehensive re-marking of the relevant papers will suffice? Will she go back to her office and immediately order that re-marking, and offer to pay for it as well?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should distrust Mike Tomlinson's report and the word of the HMC, the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers and all the teacher representatives. It is a good report, with good work over the past three to four weeks, and I am sorry that so far not one Opposition Member has chosen to support Mike Tomlinson and his recommendations.

As regards marking, the exercise undertaken by Mike Tomlinson has been wholly unusual. Never before has anyone had to look at the way in which grade boundaries were set. There is a well-established process for any school that wants remarking to take place. By the time the inquiry was set up the number of schools that had asked for re-marking rather than regrading was roughly the same as in previous years, except at OCR where the number was significantly higher. That led me to say that it looked on the face of things as if there was a problem at OCR. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that when any school which applies for remarking—the boards have extended the period during which that can take place—and re-marking takes place, the fee is sent back to the school.

What will my right hon. Friend say to the 17 pupils at Horsforth school in my constituency where English literature marks were changed to the extent that some of those pupils received 91 out of 120, rather than 21 out of 120, and others received 102 out of 120? Would it surprise her to learn that the examination board involved offered no apology for its mistakes and all the trauma that was caused? What reassurance will she give pupils, parents and the school not only that we shall learn the lessons from this fiasco but that in future examination boards will have a much more human face?

I know that my hon. Friend will take back the comments that I have made to the House today, expressing our understanding of the distress that the students must have gone through. His comments only serve to remind us that we were absolutely right to act as we did in setting up an independent inquiry, letting it do its work and reporting to the House when it had completed its tasks.

As regards any points that hon. Members raise on the future of examination boards or the impartiality or robustness of the examination system, it is good to have the debate, but I am determined to wait for part two of Mike Tomlinson's report. At that point we shall no doubt have the opportunity to discuss and debate it further.

Given that Ministers introduced the AS-level, given that Ministers approved the increase in repeatable coursework and given that Ministers had sight of the draft QCA guidance on grading, how does it follow that Ministers had no responsibility at all for the accident about to happen? Discuss.

Grade E, bordering on U.

Given the hon. Gentleman's previous post, I should have thought that he would understand that the setting of grades, sending out subject specifications or anything to do with the marking assessment system is hands off for politicians. I do not question for a minute that the situation was not the same in his day. It is hands off for politicians and it is important that that remain the case. The QCA is responsible for setting out subject-specific guidance and for all the implementation and mechanics of the system.

I am responsible for the policy. I am responsible for making sure that when something goes wrong it is put right. I am responsible for Curriculum 2000 and I am happy to be held accountable for that. I cannot be held responsible—nor can any politician—for interfering in the exam system because politicians should not do so. We did not do that and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not either.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problem is that some people just will not believe that A-level results are improving? They do not believe that more than a minority of people should be allowed to take A-levels and go to university. Should those people not be pointed in the direction of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development research that found that we now have the eighth best education system in the world? We should be complimenting pupils rather than running them down the whole time.

My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. We have an excellent education system in which standards have increased at every key stage, at seven, 11, 14, 16 and 18. We should be proud of it.

I say again that we cannot be proud of the events that led to the statement. I acknowledge that. No one would want to pretend otherwise. However, each Member of the House, from all parties, has to make a personal decision: whether to accept what has come from the report, to learn from it and move on and to congratulate our students and teachers on their achievements, or whether to continue to make political capital over it—I think some have already made that decision.

I have dealt with the problems that arose during the past few weeks. We shall now move on and that will include recognising the achievements of the generation of children who are in our schools at present.

The grading problems came to light through the starkly contrasting results of children who had been awarded previous A grades but final U grades in their modules. Anyone who has been a teacher knows that that is almost impossible and very unlikely in large numbers. However, C and D grades followed by mistaken U grades may be more difficult to identify. Has the Secretary of State satisfied herself that young people across the grading system—not merely those with As and Bs initially—have been treated fairly?

Absolutely. I did not know this two months ago, but I can now tell the hon. Lady that in order to set the grade boundaries, what first happens is that the A pass rate is set and the E pass grade is set, and then the grades in between are calibrated, presumably, within that framework. When that process was gone through again, every single grade would have been affected, so I want to offer the assurance that the process that has just been undergone has not just been about whether people who got an A or an E or a U got the correct grade; it has been about every single grade. Indeed, some of the young people who have been notified of grade changes today will find, for example, that they have a C that goes up to a B. It has been done effectively.

I again give the hon. Lady an assurance, because I do understand the seriousness of the matter; many Members of the House, not only as constituency MPs but as parents, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, know the importance of this and I note his concerns. But every single person who complained about the grading of this year's examination results has signed up today and said that they think that the process has been fair, that they are happy with the results and that they want to move on. I hope that we can do so as well.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the stridency of her statement and the brazen lack of contrition that she has displayed this afternoon make us all comprehend why she so regularly gets the bird at teachers' conferences? She keeps on citing the judgment of Mr. Tomlinson. Are not parents, teachers, the universities and, not least, students entitled to have a Secretary of State in whose judgment they can trust?

I think that, as I said before, the role of the Secretary of State in this is, on hearing of concerns, to look at the evidence, take action and ensure that the matter is put right. I set up this inquiry some three-and-a-half to four weeks ago. Within a relatively short period, a great deal has happened. I have been responsible for ensuring that the inquiry has been carried out effectively. I have been responsible for ensuring that it has been brought to a timely conclusion. I have been responsible for ensuring that at every single stage of that inquiry, those whose concerns brought the matter to our attention in the first place, were satisfied with the procedures that were being used. I believe that that is the sort of Secretary of State that teachers and the nation want.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that "Erskine May", on page 266, addresses a problem of sufficient time to deal with business. We have before us an important debate on post offices and other matters, but we also have the matter of local government finance, which represents 25 per cent. of public expenditure. Even with good will, I cannot imagine that we shall get on to that before 8 o'clock or maybe even later. That does not allow sufficient time to debate this important issue. Have you had an indication from the Leader of the House or from the Deputy Prime Minister that one of them will be coming to the House to make a statement on change of business so that we can have additional time to discuss this matter, which is vital to all our constituents?

I do understand and sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and indeed with other hon. Members in the House who hope to contribute to the debates. The timing of debates and the order of business are in the hands of the Government and I have had no notice of a statement of the type in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order concerning the treatment of the House of Commons by the Executive, for the consideration and reflection of Mr. Speaker? On 7 February 1996—

1896.

—1996. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), then the shadow Leader of the House, said in relation to the Scott report:

"I ask you, Madam Speaker, what you can do to ensure that Members of the House, and in particular the official Opposition, are not deliberately disadvantaged by the procedures being adopted by the Government."—[Official Report, 7 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 331.]

My right hon. Friend returned to the subject the following day, saying:

"Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the spirit of Madam Speaker's statement yesterday that Ministers should have eight days to consider the report while the Opposition have only six hours?"—[Official Report, 8 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 472.]

Indeed, the present Leader of the House, a week later on 15 February, at column 1146, complained bitterly that the then Government had had eight days and Members of Parliament had had eight minutes.

It is in the recollection of Members that on 24 September, a dossier of 55 pages on a rather complex subject was published at 8 o'clock. It was subsequently described, rightly or wrongly, by President Putin as little more than propaganda. My question is this: if reports are published for the consideration of the House, should not they be published—as they perfectly easily could have been—two, three or four days before, so that they can be considered not only by Members, but on the anvil of informed opinion? Quite bluntly, I think that it was a calculated, cynical attempt to give a rather different gloss on a report than that which was actually contained in the report. These things should be subject to argument, because otherwise it will be seen as a deceiving the House.

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice to Mr. Speaker of his point of order. The House can reasonably expect notice of important Government documents before they are the subject of debate, and Mr. Speaker attaches importance to this principle. The exact timing of the issue or publication of Government documents, however, remains a matter for Ministers, and the Speaker has no power to direct when papers will be provided.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Hundreds of schoolteachers in Devon this evening are looking to tonight's debate on local government finance to give them hope in tackling the underfunding of children in Devon and to help them campaign for fair funding for Devon schoolchildren. Now that the Government have squeezed that debate into two hours, how can these issues properly be dealt with by the House? What message can I take back to the people of Devon about the way that this Government have once again sought to sideline the importance of the House?

I have already answered that point of order, I think, which was raised by a Member on the Front Bench.