Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 1 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill.

TUESDAY 2 MARCH—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill.

WEDNESDAY 3 MARCH—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on trade justice for the developing world followed by a debate entitled "Crisis in the Protection of Vulnerable Children". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.

THURSDAY 4 MARCH—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill followed by a debate on women, equality and human rights on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 5 MARCH—Private Members Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

MONDAY 8 MARCH—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.

TUESDAY 9 MARCH—Opposition Day [Unallotted Day]. There will he a debate on a motion in the name of the SNP/Plaid Cymru, subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH—Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.

FRIDAY 12 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

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

THURSDAY 4 MARCH—Debate on the Report from the Transport Committee on ports.

THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Debate on the Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on privacy and media intrusion.

THURSDAY 18 MARCH—Debate on the Report from the Science and Technology Committee on the scientific response to terrorism.

THURSDAY 25 MARCH—Debate on China.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Was he as flabbergasted as I was by the remarks this morning by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)? One understands the difficulties, but when will we hear a Government response on the issue?

The Prime Minister has just announced a new commission for Africa and a new emphasis on Africa. Is it not about time that we had a debate on Zimbabwe—we have not had one since 1997—now that the Government's quiet diplomacy has obviously failed? Is it not about time that the Government gave some clear guidance to the England and Wales Cricket Board about whether it should cancel its tour?

I have pressed tin Leader of the House on several occasions to tell us when the Penrose report is to be published. Hundreds of thousands of pension scheme members are worried about the loss of their life savings, and there is also concern on both sides of the House about the issue. Is it right that we are to have the statement next week? The rumour is that it will be on Tuesday. Is the Leader of the House able to give us clear information about that so that we do not have to wait for the Sunday newspapers, as we so often do these days?

The Leader of the House knows that we would like early debates on the airports and defence White Papers. Can he help us on those? When will the draft Mental Health Bill be produced for pre-legislative scrutiny? He will know that many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about that. Will we have to wait to hear about that in the Sunday papers, or will he tell us about it today?

Last week, the Government made announcements about the reform of the examination system, immigrants' benefits and substantial changes to the civil service and we had the inspired leak about genetically modified foods. To round off the week in recess, the Prime Minister gave an interview in the News of the World about proposing drug testing for school students. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is an important principle that announcements should be made in this place? When he said on the "Today" programme on Monday that there were too many announcements to inform Parliament about all of them, was he being serious and, if so, will he tell us what sort of announcement he will not be informing Parliament about? Will it be the tricky ones, or does he just want to leave something for the Sunday papers?

On the last point, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the "Weekly Information Bulletin"—as I am sure he has done—he will see that from 6 to 12 February there was a whole list of written ministerial statements—

Written!

Indeed, written ministerial statements, because the time of the House could not be constantly filled up with statements. The Government are held accountable to the House through those statements—on top of which, the Government, whether the Prime Minister or other members of the Cabinet, have given regular statements, weekly statements, on all those key issues. May I suggest that that was a typically fatuous question from the shadow Leader of the House? On that point—[Interruption.]

Order. Members should let the Leader of the House answer—that is how we handle things.

May I express surprise about the titles of the Opposition motions? I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for the advance notice, as it is in the interest of Members to know what next week's business will be, but I am very surprised that there is to be no Opposition debate on public spending levels, given the plans, as announced by the shadow Chancellor, to cut public spending in the first two years after the next general election by up to £18 billion. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman is confident about that, there should be a debate in Opposition time on their spending plans.

The shadow Leader of the House said that he was flabbergasted by the statement made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). May I simply repeat what the Prime Minister said? It was a deeply irresponsible statement, and that says it all.

The Prime Minister's announcement this morning of the commission for Africa was very important, because of the poverty that Africa has been trapped in for a very long time.

Why was it not made here?

The Prime Minister has repeatedly made statements and answered questions on Africa over the past few years. He is a Prime Minister who has taken more interest in rescuing Africa from poverty than any of his predecessors. On Zimbabwe, the same is true. When I was a Foreign Office Minister, I remember regularly making statements to the House, answering debates in Westminster Hall and answering questions in robust terms. If behind the question put by the shadow Leader of the House is the view that Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is being dragged into a desperate state by that tyrant, I agree. We are working continuously with other African leaders to bring that situation to a conclusion, so that the people of Zimbabwe can be liberated from that tyranny. I notice, however, that there is never any suggestion from the Opposition for an alternative policy to deal with Zimbabwe.

On the planned, or proposed, English cricket tour, discussions have been going on, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Ultimately, the decision is for the English cricket authorities; they have sought and been given advice. Their adviser, Des Wilson, has drawn up a framework for taking a decision, and a decision will, ultimately, be taken.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Penrose report. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said on several occasions, most recently only a couple of weeks ago on 12 February, that the Treasury plan to publish the report in full as soon as possible and that it will answer questions following publication. He asked when, and whether it would be next week. When is when we are ready to do so—[Interruption.] I understand the concern of Members and all our constituents about the matter, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the Government will give a considered response when we are ready to do so, so that we can take the matter forward.

On the defence and airports White Papers, and all the others, I have already answered those questions, as the hon. Gentleman has put them to me before. On the draft Mental Health Bill, a great chunk of it has already been subject to consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, as he knows. The question is when the remaining issues are to be considered, and we shall take that forward when we are able to do so.

I want to request an urgent statement for next week. The Prime Minister has been answering media questions this morning, but does the Leader of the House accept that he is principally accountable to the House? As there are extremely important topical issues—not least, of course, the collapse of the case against Katharine Gun and the disclosures of the former Secretary of State for International Development—for the remit of the Butler inquiry, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to come before the House on that specific issue, which only he can answer?

If it was so necessary to persuade members of the United Nations Security Council to support the second resolution, why did the Prime Minister later assure the House that that resolution was not necessary before he took the country to war? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister comes to answer that question and to explain precisely how the implications of those cases relate to the remit of the Butler inquiry? For example, the Attorney-General has already indicated in the other place that the Foreign Secretary must answer questions about GCHQ. He has already said that there are important issues that are the Prime Minister's responsibility, and the later statement from the Solicitor-General cannot possibly cover that. So when will we get that opportunity to question the Prime Minister?

Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the full advice and instructions given by the Foreign Office legal team to the Attorney-General before he produced his opinion on the legality of the Iraq invasion will be made available to the Butler inquiry and made public? As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has consistently asked for that to be made public. The leader of the Conservative party did not regard it as important that we saw the legal advice on the invasion of Iraq—he wanted to go to war anyway—but we have consistently asked for that, and we now believe that it is extremely important.

I have a constituency interest in GCHQ: the listening post is at Morwenstow in my constituency. I want to know whether my constituents are being put in an invidious position by what they are being asked to do. The Prime Minister set up the Butler inquiry. He, and only he, can answer to the House on its remit.

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was yesterday, but the Prime Minister was here, answering questions put to him by hon. Members from across the House, and the hon. Gentleman could have put any question to him if he had been called. The Prime Minister is here every week. He appears before the Liaison Committee. He makes statements to the House. He is a Prime Minister who is more accountable to the House than any of his predecessors, and the hon. Gentleman ought surely to recognise that.

On the Gun case and the events that transpired yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Solicitor-General is about to make a statement to the House, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue any question that he wants then. The Attorney-General has already made a statement in the other place.

On Iraq, the issue has been debated up and down, inside out. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can continue to debate it if he wishes, but the position has always been clearly stated by Ministers—whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence. We worked night and day to try to get the second resolution. That was our preference. We wanted United Nations backing. That was not possible, and action was needed to follow to get rid of Saddam Hussein, which was accomplished.

On the Attorney-General's advice—again, as the Prime Minister has made it clear this morning, and he would have made it clear if he had been asked yesterday by the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues if they had taken the opportunity to do so—such advice is never published, and it never has been by previous Governments. That is the situation—frankly, it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise—but, as he also knows, a summary of the essential point that the Attorney-General was making appeared in an answer to a parliamentary question, as appropriately tabled. In fact, the House was informed of the gist of the advice, but it has not been the practice to publish the Attorney-General's advice because Law Officers' advice is not published. It is private advice to the Government.

Yesterday, Baroness Scotland visited my constituency to speak about antisocial behaviour, and two people were at the back of the hall: one was the new community beat officer and the other was the new community support officer in Pencoed. If the Opposition are not minded to do so, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the £18 billion of cuts and on how many police and community support officers would go and how many police stations would close as a result in my constituency?

I am very tempted indeed to discuss with the Chancellor the opportunity to do that, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that his constituents—indeed, the whole House—would wish at an appropriate time to discuss the consequences of the £18 billion-worth of cuts over two years, following the next general election. As he rightly suggests, that figure includes a cut in policing budgets of up to £1 billion. Those cuts would have a catastrophic effect on the recruitment of new police officers and the provision of extra resources to tackle crime that has been taking place under this Government. In contrast, under the previous Government, the number of police officers was reduced and crime went up—a dangerous situation for everyone concerned.

Some time ago, I sent three letters to the Prime Minister asking him to correct the erroneous impression that the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) was killed off by the Lords, when it never reached the upper House. I finally managed to wring an answer out of the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House, because the letters were not answered.

The Prime Minister seems to be having problems with his correspondence again. I recently wrote to him asking him to place in the Library a copy of the threatening letter that he sent the director-general of the BBC in 2003 and to list the threatening phone calls made by Mr. Alastair Campbell on his behalf to the BBC between March and April 2003. The Prime Minister seems to be unable to answer those questions, so can the House have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can question the efficiency of the Downing street correspondence unit?

The hon. Gentleman can apply for any debate on any issue that he likes, including that one. However, may I just say that the Prime Minister does not send threatening letters to anybody?

The Leader of the House may not be aware of the fact that decades ago MPs on both sides of the House representing the east midlands campaigned to establish an independent news and current affairs centre for the east midlands based in Nottingham. Like Members from the east midlands and me, he will be alarmed to learn that this morning ITV announced the proposed closure of that centre, which is to be moved to the west midlands, with the loss of 200 jobs. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that we have an urgent debate on the issue?

My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to put that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at Culture, Media and Sport questions on Monday 8 March. However, I well understand his anxiety about job losses and the concerns of people in the east midlands that there should be proper independent television coverage and programmes that reflect local and regional interests. I am sure that the television chiefs and the Secretary of State will want to bear in mind what he said.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 657, which stands in my name and asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his teeth into the sticky problem of discarded chewing gum?

[That this House despairs at the disgusting problem of discarded chewing gum 7 which blights the streets of every city and town the length and breadth of the country; notes the efforts of local authorities in trying to address this problem, but acknowledges that despite these efforts discarded chewing gum continues to present an intractable problem; calls on the Chancellor to introduce a chewing gum levy on the chewing gum manufacturers, so that for every packet of chewing gum bought a couple of pence is taken in the form of a levy to be then given to local authorities to address this problem; and calls on the chewing gum manufacturers to do more to make sure their product is fully bio-degradable and non-adhesive.]

I am sure that the House is aware of the appalling mess that blights every town and city the length and breadth of the country. Will the Leader of the House chew over my request for a debate, and consider my modest proposal for a 2p levy on chewing gum manufacturers so that that horrible mess can be addressed?

I will chew it over.

May I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend early-day motion 652 on private Members' Bills?

[That this House believes that, under the present sitting hours, Private Members' bills should be taken on Tuesday evenings after 7:00pm, which would make all Fridays non-sitting days for honourable Members; further believes that this would allow honourable Members to be able to use Fridays for working in their constituencies, thereby enabling them to foster closer relationships with businesses, schools and organisations which function from Mondays to Fridays; and further relieves that it would enable more honourable Members to be present in the House and take part in the debates and votes on private Members' bills.]

The motion was tabled three days ago, and has already attracted 58 signatures. It proposes that private Members' Bills, instead of being heard on a Friday, should be debated on Tuesday evenings after 7 pm. What progress has my right hon. Friend made with the Modernisation Committee on the issue?

We have not had an opportunity to consider any detailed propositions such as the one suggested by my hon. Friend. I have noted the early-day motion, and am struck by the fact that it has cross-party support. It needs to be taken seriously, and I urge her and her colleagues, including Members who signed the early-day motion, to have discussions with other colleagues who have taken a different view of the original decision to change the hours to see whether a consensus can be built around the issue or a variation of it. If I can find an early consensus on the sitting hours of the House I am willing to table a motion, but I am not willing to table an early motion on a proper review in the absence of any such consensus.

Will the Leader of the House allow us to have a debate on agriculture, as there are many issues that we need to discuss, not least the new subsidy arrangements announced by the Government two weeks ago and which, either by accident or design, will have a serious impact on the income of upland livestock farmers in England, including those in my constituency in Northumberland? Those farmers look after some of the most loved landscapes in England, including the Lake District, the Pennines, Dartmoor and Exmoor. We need a debate to find out how we can rescue them from impending financial disaster.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concerns. As he knows, the Secretary of State has made a statement on the likely outcome of European future financing and her plans in respect of England. However, when he talks about financial problems, he should recognise that his party now advocates a cut in agricultural and rural support programmes. The problems in his constituency will not be solved by Conservative party policy, and I suggest that he change his stance.

My right hon. Friend will know that the decision to allocate secondary school places to children in London under the new unified pan-London admission system is imminent, and that that is a very important matter for thousands of parents and children in London and in other parts of the country where similar allocations are in the course of being made. In view of increasing parental pressure and competition for places in good schools and the increasing number of appeals against decisions by admission authorities, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is time to have a debate on the Floor of the House about the operation of school admissions, especially secondary school admissions, and specifically about the role of the schools adjudicator, two of whose decisions, in Wandsworth and Hertfordshire, were recently overturned by the courts? Will he find time for a debate on the whole issue of secondary school admissions in the near future?

I recognise my hon. Friend's continuing expertise on, interest in and advocacy of comprehensive schools through the campaign for comprehensive education, and I know of his concerns about such matters. My hon. Friend is of course free to apply for a debate, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will want to pay close attention to his comments.

As we just heard, two weeks ago the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came to this House to make a statement about common agricultural policy reform. In that statement, she said that people on Exmoor will benefit from those reforms, but I am afraid that that is manifestly not the case. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask her to come to the House to correct those comments; and in his reply to me, will he refrain from giving us a party political tirade, because this is about European money, not domestic taxpayers' money?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about Exmoor. He is right to raise the matter, and the Secretary of State will certainly want to take account of his remarks if the impact is as he describes it. As my right hon. Friend said, the effects are balanced right across the country. Moreover, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that reform of the original subsidy system, which was provided by a bloated and inefficient common agricultural policy, was much needed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for nodding. Although the general terms of the Secretary of State's announcement were welcomed, I understand that its application to his own area is an issue, and my right hon. Friend will want to take close account of his remarks.

May we have an early debate in Government time on early-day motion 691, which stands in my name and in those of colleagues?

[That this House applauds the courage and patriotism of GCHQ translator Katharine Gun who made public information about a memo from the US Government National Security Agency requesting UK assistance with a covert surveillance campaign of the United Nations Security Council members such as Mexico and Chile prior to voting on a resolution which would have endorsed the proposed invasion of Iraq in March 2003; welcomes the decision to drop the charges against her for breaching the Official Secrets Act; considers that the actions of Ms Gun qualify her as a whistleblower—an employee who, on the basis of principle, exposes a malpractice or a miscarriage of justice that deserves public attention; calls on the Government to reform the Official Secrets Act sothat whistleblowers are able to have a public interest defence so that if a jury can be persuaded that a breach of the Official Secrets Act is in the public interest this should be an absolute defence; and calls on the Government to make a statement on the information made public by Ms Gun.]

The motion, while praising the courage of whistleblower Katharine Gun and welcoming the decision, albeit somewhat late in the day, to drop all charges against her, calls on the Government to reform the Official Secrets Act to afford whistleblowers the defence of public interest, which, if a jury is so persuaded, will be deemed an absolute defence?

My hon. Friend will know that the Government introduced both legislation to protect whistleblowers and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so our record in this respect is very good indeed. However, she is of course able to apply for a debate and to question the Solicitor-General when she appears in the House shortly.

I am aware that following this business we are to have a statement by the Solicitor-General. Having listened to the Attorney-General's statement in the other place this morning, I am sure that it is apparent to most observers that it raises more questions than it answers. Speaking as a one-time procurator fiscal depute, it is surely apparent that someone in Government has danced with tackety boots all over the notion of independent prosecutors bringing prosecutions in the public interest. It is inevitable that in the course of the next few days more information will come into the public domain about the case and the decision to drop proceedings. Will the Leader of the House give me an assurance that when it does, we will be allowed the opportunity to discuss it fully?

The hon. Gentleman is hunting for conspiracies that do not exist. The Solicitor-General's statement, like the Attorney-General's statement, will be crystal clear on the matter. The decision was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service on evidential grounds following consultation with independent prosecuting counsel and the Attorney-General. Such decisions are essentially for the independent prosecuting counsel. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman's shaking his head—that is the fact of the situation.

Will the Leader of the House make time as early as possible next week for a full debate on all the security information that was sought before the conflict in Iraq, particularly the bugging operation that apparently went on at the United Nations? Does he not think that the British public and taxpayers who pay for all this have a right to know what went on, who made the decisions, and who authorised that bugging to go on, if it did? In the interests of transparency, an early debate would be very welcome.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Butler inquiry was set up specifically to look into the whole question of intelligence in relation to this issue. As regards the latest allegations, the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear this morning that Governments and Prime Ministers do not comment on security or intelligence matters. If we, or they, did, that would endanger the whole security of the country and the operations of the security services. Even if my hon. Friend is successful in getting a debate, he will not find it very profitable to have done so.

The Leader of House will have noted early-day motion 683 on the 300th anniversary of the British link with the territory of Gibraltar.

[That this House notes with great pleasure that this year sees the celebration of the 300th Anniversary of relations between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom; further notes during this long period of time the closeness of that relationship and the ongoing support of Gibraltar to the United Kingdom, especially during periods when the support of Gibraltar was of crucial importance; further notes, with pride, the deep commitment of Gibraltar as a member of the British Islands and Mediterranean Region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to the principles of the Commonwealth in which it is a highly respected member; and believes there is a need for the fullest cooperation and understanding between the two countries in any decisions that may need to be taken that would in any way affect Gibraltar and this should only be done with the fullest involvement and co-operation of the elected representatives of Gibraltar and its people.]

The Leader of the House will be aware that next week a special service of thanksgiving will take place in London to celebrate that great anniversary. As he is renowned for his campaigning for democracy over many years, will he bring to this House at the earliest possible opportunity legislation to give the people of Gibraltar the same democratic right to vote to elect a Member of Parliament to this House that is enjoyed by everyone else in the United Kingdom?

The answer to that question is no.

Can the Leader of the House find the time to discuss the miners' compensation package? Such a debate would allow those of us who represent mining constituencies to congratulate the Government on recognising the suffering that miners underwent during their years of working underground. It would also allow me to raise the case of my constituent Mr. Harry Fletcher, who is 80 years old, worked underground all his life creating wealth for this country, and now suffers from the most severe vibration white finger imaginable. His records have been lost and there is no longer any living witness to the fact that he was employed underground, which has led to the denial of his application for compensation. Will the Leader of the House allow us to debate that matter on the Floor of the House or, if not, will he at least bring that case to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

I will certainly do that. As a representative of a former coal mining community, in concert with my hon. Friend I know that these cases worry many of our constituents who are in an appalling state of health, whether caused by vibration white finger or lung disease. I am sure that everything that can be done to assist with his constituent's case will be done by the Minister for Energy or the Secretary of State. However, I remind him, and I am sure that he will want to agree, that there have been record payouts of hundreds of millions of pounds—indeed, getting on for £1.5 billion—across the country to rescue the sick miners concerned or their families from the appalling destitution into which they have fallen as a result of the ill health that they have suffered.

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the sleight of hand that he practised in not giving a proper answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House? When asked why we are not getting proper oral statements from Ministers in this House during which they can answer questions from Members, the Leader of the House resorted to some slick comment about written ministerial statements. Even he must understand that there is a difference between a written ministerial statement, which cannot be questioned by Members, and a proper oral statement when Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and are prepared to answer questions from Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. When will the Leader of the House stop taking refuge in this ridiculous written ministerial statement procedure and get his colleagues to come and answer properly at the Dispatch Box?

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is better to have the procedure of planted questions—

No.

I presume, then, that he agrees that written ministerial statements are a good idea.

No.

He cannot have it both ways. He must surely agree that written ministerial statements are a preferable alternative to planted questions.

The right hon. Gentleman is practised at perpetuating the myth that there was sleight of hand. Cabinet Ministers have made masses of statements, and they make them every week. If he looks at the record of this Parliament, he will find that we are at least as accountable to the House as previous Governments. During the first six years and nine months of his premiership the Prime Minister spent 107 hours and 30 minutes in the Chamber, whereas John Major's equivalent period was 87 hours and 30 minutes—an extra 20 hours of accountability o the House by our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made 61 statements, compared with just 46 by John Major. That shows much greater accountability to the House by a Labour Prime Minister than by his Tory predecessor.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the demands of the Doctors for Reform group, which yesterday called for everyone in the country to be forced to purchase medical insurance, whether they can afford it or not? May we have an urgent debate on that important matter and on today's further revelations that, far from being an independent organisation, this group is a Tory front organisation dedicated to undermining and dismantling the NHS? When a group parades as independent, surely Members of the House have a right to know what its true political affiliations are, particularly when the issue is the sensitive one of health spending and the protection of the values of the NHS, and particularly when the group is clearly—

Order. There are other Members' contributions to be considered.

I agree with every word of my hon. Friend's question. Indeed, I would be enthusiastic about the prospects for a debate on those lines, because a clear divide is opening up between this Government, who believe in publicly funded health services from which people can seek relief from pain or proper treatment free at the point of use, and an alternative point of view—advocated by the Conservatives, and probably also by this front organization—of moving towards increasing privatisation, robbing the national health service of up to £2 billion to walk down the road to private hospitals. That is the choice—a high-quality publicly funded national health service under Labour or privately funded health provision under the Conservatives.

In respect of one other matter, may I correct a mistake that I inadvertently made about business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 4 March? The debate will in fact be on the report from the Transport Committee on overcrowding on public transport, not, as I think I said, on ports.

The Leader of the House has made great play of the amount of time that the Prime Minister spends in the House of Commons. Is it not important, however, that, when he is here, what he says is factually accurate? If it is not, he should come to the House to correct it as quickly as possible. During yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, he committed a clear error of fact when he said

"the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong; the guidance—"

he was referring to drug testing in schools—

"is to be issued next week."—[Official Report, 25 February 2004:Vol. 418, c. 279.]

That guidance was issued on 16 February, so the Prime Minister made a clear error of fact and should correct it. When will he come to the House to do that?

On the general matter of Prime Minister's questions—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman's point specifically. The Prime Minister has answered a massive range of questions, including one on Buddhism in relation to one hon. Member's constituency. I am advised that the drug guidance to head teachers and schools is being issued on 9 March, which accords absolutely with what the Prime Minister said yesterday, so the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his question.

My right hon. Friend may be aware of early-day motion 665, which stands in my name, in relation to profits in the oil, gas and banking industries.

[That this House recognises the excessive profits recently recorded in industries such as oil and gas and banking; and therefore calls on the Government to use its influence to ensure these profits are fairly distributed between shareholders, employees and consumers who have all contributed to these profits rather than the executives who award themselves large bonuses or other hidden benefits.]

Will my right hon. Friend use his tremendous influence within the Government to ensure that executives in those industries have a moral responsibility to ensure that these excessive and record profits are shared among shareholders, employees and especially consumers? Their contributions have led to the profits being gained, and they should not go into the coffers of chief executives.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The staff concerned will want to be properly remunerated, and the senior managers concerned will want to be fairly remunerated, but not by being given exceptional rewards for mediocre performance. His question is important and he is free to apply for a debate to raise the issues involved.

Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to holding a debate on the flawed processes surrounding consultation and decision making on the network reinvention programme for post offices? On 16 February I received a letter from Eddie Herbert, the north-west area head for post office reinvention, about Turves Road post office in my constituency, in which he stated that he was still having to take time to consider the consultation responses that he had received. I learned yesterday, however, that the meeting between the Post Office and Postwatch was held on 16 February—the same day that he wrote to me to say that he was taking more time to consider responses. May we please have a debate on the Floor of the House that will enable us to explore this and other flaws in the process?

rose—

Order. Before we go any further, I remind Members that they must be fair to other Members. Long questions mean only that other Members' questions will be cut out.

I understand the hon. Lady's concerns about consultative processes conducted by Post Office managers. I, and many other Members, have received many representations about flaws in that process. I am sure that the Post Office managers concerned, and the Secretary of State, will want to take careful note of what she says.

In the run-up to the publication of the defence White Paper, my newspapers regularly carried scare stories about the demise of the Cheshire Regiment. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the great work done by the regiment, and will he reconsider his answer to the shadow Leader of the House and grant an early debate on the defence White Paper so that we may praise the work of the county regiments and expose the proposed Tory cuts in defence?

I am inclined—[Interruption.] I see that Conservative Members are joining my hon. Friend in exposing the mistaken policies of their party. I join him in praising the brilliant standards, reputation and courageous work of the Cheshire Regiment over many generations. Its future, and that of other regiments, would be jeopardised by the cuts of £1.5 billion planned by the Conservative party in the first two years following a general election.

In reply to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who complained about the plethora of Government news announcements made in the recess, the Leader of the House, sounding more like a partisan news manager than the custodian of our democratic principles, called in aid a long list of written ministerial statements. Does he not notice that three of the eight statements on today's Order Paper concern important issues relating to Northern Ireland business, which are the concern of this House and on which we need to question Her Majesty's Government, as the devolved institutions of the Province are in abeyance?

Notwithstanding the specific question that the hon. Gentleman asks, my point is that surely an above-board written ministerial statement on such questions is preferable to the practice adopted by Governments over the decades—and quite possibly the centuries—of planting questions so that they can answer them to make ministerial statements. That is common sense. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, many oral statements are made by Cabinet Ministers, virtually every week, and they are here to answer questions almost every day of the week as well.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many thousands of people in my constituency and elsewhere are in desperate need of rehousing, and that there are not enough houses for them. In recent discussions with private builders and construction trade unions, it has become obvious that builders are interested in the development of executive homes, on which they can make a big profit, not in the building of social housing on brownfield sites for local authorities or housing associations. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate in which we can look at the possibility of developing once again a substantial public sector house building industry, which could provide homes for people in my constituency and elsewhere?

The Government have initially been focusing on investment and improvement, rather than on new house building, which is a much-needed task, as I know my hon. Friend will agree. He nevertheless makes an important point on the need for more social housing. That is why the increasing investment going to local government—on a massive scale under this Government—and into housing provision is very important. That contrasts with the policies proposed by the Opposition, who would make cuts of £2.5 billion in local government spending in the first two years following a general election, if they were to come to office.

This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made a statement in another place about the prosecution of Katharine Gun. I apologise to the shadow Attorney-General and to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these issues, for the lateness in getting the Attorney-General's statement to them. His statement is as follows.

Yesterday, at the central criminal court, the Crown offered no evidence in the case of Katharine Gun. Ms Gun had been charged under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The effect of offering no evidence was that the case against Ms Gun was discontinued. Before I answer the questions that hon. Members will put to me today, I hope that it will help the House if I explain the process in respect of prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act.

Prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act are governed by the normal rules applied by the Crown Prosecution Service when considering any prosecution: the code for Crown prosecutors. There is an additional requirement for the Attorney-General's consent before a prosecution can go ahead under the Official Secrets Act. May I say at the outset that when making decisions under the code for Crown prosecutors, the CPS acts in the public interest? It takes independently the decisions for which it is responsible. I also remind the House that when making decisions on whether to consent to a prosecution, the Attorney-General makes his decisions in the public interest, not in the interest of the Government.

When the CPS is considering a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, the normal code rules require that it first consider the sufficiency of the evidence—evidence to make out the case and evidence to rebut any defence that might be available and that might be raised. It will not take further action if it thinks that there is insufficient evidence. If its view is that there is a realistic prospect of conviction—that is, the evidence is sufficient to make it more likely than net that a jury would convict—it then considers the public interest test. In the Gun case, the evidential test was met in the view of counsel instructed by the CPS, and in the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The evidential test having been met, the CPS next moved on to the public interest test. That test is, quite simply, to ask whether the prosecution would be in the public interest. As this prosecution was taking place under the Official Secrets Act, it also required the consent of the Attorney-General.

When considering whether to consent to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, the Attorney-General carries out a Shawcross exercise, whereby he seeks the views of a ny ministerial colleagues who may have an interest in the case. That is so that he can be informed of their views on the public interest considerations of the case within their ministerial or departmental responsibilities. When those ministerial views are expressed, the Attorney-General takes them into consideration when deciding whether to give his consent.

In the Gun case, the view of the independent prosecutor, senior Treasury counsel Mark Ellison and his junior Ed Brown, on the review of the evidence available at that time was that the evidence afforded a realistic prospect of conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service applied for the Attorney-General's consent, and he undertook a Shawcross exercise by way of a Shawcross letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of his departmental interest. That letter was copied to other interested ministerial colleagues. Views were expressed that, as always with the Shawcross exercise, the decision was the Attorney-General's. He gave his consent to the prosecution on 13 November 2003.

Under the code, it is the obligation of the prosecutor, as a case progresses, to keep under review the prospects of a conviction resulting. If, on that review, the prosecutor forms the view that the evidence is such that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it is his or her duty to withdraw the prosecution. Counsel reviewed this case. The decision not to proceed with the prosecution was made by the CPS, after consultation with the Attorney-General. It was based on the advice of senior Treasury counsel in the case. The evidential deficiency related to the prosecution's inability within the current statutory framework to disprove the defence raised on the particular facts of the case. The view of senior Treasury counsel and the DPP was that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

The prosecution consulted the Attorney-General before offering no evidence in this case. However, the decision not to pursue the case was that of the Crown Prosecution Service, as it was based on the view that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The Attorney-General made it clear, however, that he agreed with it. At the central criminal court on 25 February 2004, senior Treasury counsel informed the court that the prosecution was offering no evidence, as there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. Perhaps at this point I may tell the House of a statement made this morning by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald. He said:

"Senior Treasury Counsel prosecuting this case gave advice, with which the Director of Public Prosecutions fully concurred, that there was no longer a realistic prospect of convicting Katharine Gun.

As has been commented upon there was, in this case, a clear prima facie breach of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

The evidential deficiency related to the prosecution's inability, within the current statutory framework, to disprove the defence of necessity to be raised on the particular facts of this case.

This determination by the prosecution had nothing to do with any advice given by the Attorney General to Government in connection with the legality of the Iraq war. It was also a determination made by the prosecution in advance of the defence request for disclosure which came on 24 February 2004.

The Attorney General was consulted and concurred.

But the decision to offer no further evidence was one made by the Crown Prosecution Service as an independent prosecuting authority. It was a decision taken solely on legal grounds and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, free from any political interference."

That was the DPP's statement.

I recognise that many in the House will want to know more about the detailed basis on which counsel concluded that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. However, as the matter concerns issues of intelligence, it is not appropriate for me to go into that, even to this House.

As for the impact of the decision on the conduct of future prosecutions, the substantive law is always kept under review, and the effect of particular prosecutions on the substantive law considered.

May I first thank the Solicitor-General for giving me an advance copy of the statement? I make no criticism of the slight lateness of its arrival, and I accept her apology for that. I should also like to say at the outset that I see no reason to express any criticism whatever of the conduct of the Attorney-General, on the facts as they are available at present, or indeed of the Solicitor-General. Nevertheless, this case raises some very important and worrying features.

It is an unusual feature of the case, as the Solicitor-General will confirm, that the facts of Ms Gun's actions were not in dispute. The defence that had been raised was one of necessity. When was that defence first expressed? Was it, as has been suggested and as I believe to be the case, in the numerous interviews that took place between Ms Gun and her interviewers, under caution, in the spring and summer of last year, leading to her being charged with this offence in November?

Was it the case that, prior to charge, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General were consulted, so that the Shawcross exercise of which the Solicitor-General spoke was carried out? If so, why did the evaluation of the chances of conviction change so dramatically between the date of charge in November and the events yesterday? When did it become clear that the case would not succeed? When was it decided by the Attorney-General that it should not go ahead? I have heard what the Solicitor-General said about that decision being made prior to a request for further material from the prosecution on 24 February, but will she be more specific about that? I understand that the Attorney-General had discussions with the Foreign Secretary on 14 and 24 February. Will she amplify from that when the decision was taken?

Why was the view changed? There is no suggestion in this case that a defence statement had yet been served, because none was required prior to the plea and directions hearing. It was suggested by the Attorney-General in his statement in the House of Lords that new material had come to light. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General will not be able to comment on specific material, but will she tell the House why that material was not available earlier? Was the material produced for the prosecution by those supplying it with information within the intelligence services, or was it served by the defence?

I understand that the Attorney-General properly consulted Cabinet colleagues, as he is entitled to do under the Shawcross rules. As I said earlier, I believe that he consulted the Foreign Secretary on at least two occasions. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether, in addition to that, the Prime Minister was consulted about this case at any time between its first investigation and its discontinuance? It has been widely suggested and publicised that the discontinuance followed a request by the defence for a copy of the Attorney-General's advice on the Iraq war. I cannot see a reason why the Solicitor-General cannot indicate whether such a request was made prior to discontinuance yesterday, and I would be grateful if she would tell the Roust whether that was indeed the case. I would obviously agree with her if she were to confirm that that document would be covered by privilege and therefore be unobtainable, unless of course the Government chose to waive the privilege upon it.

The Attorney-General made an important point in his statement, which was repeated by the Solicitor-General:

"The evidential deficiency related to the prosecution's inability within the current statutory framework to disprove the defence raised on the particular facts of the case."

That is a very serious statement, and if that is so, is the Solicitor-General saying that, under the Official Secrets Act, no defence of necessity can be rebutted, so that in future no such prosecution can ever succeed, allowing anyone who chooses to leak official documents—potentially causing great damage to our freedom—to escape conviction? Or is she saying that, as Official Secrets Act prosecutions usually require the withholding of certain material from a jury under public interest immunity, resulting in the acceptance by the jury of the good faith underlying the prosecution process brought by the state, that the current state of public distrust of the Government over their actions in Iraq has rendered the process of justice impossible in this instance? Whichever is the case, this is a disastrous state of affairs for the due process of justice in this country.

In the House of Lords, the Attorney-General suggested that a review of the Official Secrets Act was to be conducted. Will the Solicitor-General tell the House when that might happen and when a statement might be made to the House if the implications of this case? There have been previous requests by many people to see a copy of the Attorney-General's advice. There are perfectly good legal reasons for not making it available, but does the Solicitor-General agree that it is open to the Government, if they so choose, to waive their privilege and to allow the advice to be made available to the public? Will she consult her Cabinet colleagues about whether that might help to restore faith in the administration of justice in this country? There are very serious matters that go way beyond the issues surrounding the case in the Solicitor-General's and Attorney-General's statements. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General can clear up some of these matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the defence of necessity was disclosed at an early stage and therefore considered by those who had conduct of the prosecution. It is clear that it became evident at an early stage, if not from the outset, that it was a realistic prospect that Ms Gun might raise the defence of necessity. That was known and considered before the charge. Prior to the charge, the Shawcross exercise was undertaken. The Attorney-General has to consent to a prosecution going forward.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the evaluation had changed. That is a difficult question for me to answer as fully as I would like to. He will know from his experience at the Bar that evidence comes and goes, and that a case has to be kept under constant review. If at any point counsel with the conduct of the case decides, on the balance of all the admissible evidence that might go to the proving of the charge or the rebutting of the defence, that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it is counsel's duty to make his view known that that is the case.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the Attorney-General decided not to go ahead with the case, but I can tell the House that it was not decided by the Attorney-General. He was told of the view Treasury counsel, with which the Director of Public Prosecutions concurred, relating to the lack a sufficiency of the evidence. The Attorney-General was told about, and agreed with, the view of Treasury counsel, but it was actually the decision of the prosecuting authorities, not the Attorney-General.

I ask the House to understand the separate nature of the Attorney-General's discussions with the Foreign Secretary. The Shawcross exercise means that the Attorney-General will consult his ministerial colleagues in deciding, as part of his consideration, whether a prosecution is in the public interest. He will do that because the prosecution might affect the Departments for which they are responsible.

That is quite separate from the issue of evidential sufficiency. As the Attorney-General explained in the other place this morning, the discussions that he had on 14 and 24 February were about the evidential questions. As a matter of courtesy, he was reporting to the Foreign Secretary on the evidential issues that had arisen, and discussing them with him. He was not asking for the Foreign Secretary's views on whether the prosecution was still in the public interest, nor was he giving the decision on the sufficiency of evidence to the Foreign Secretary. He was not consulting the Foreign Secretary; he was simply explaining to him, and discussing with him, the evidential position. No defence statement had been served—this brings us back to the issue of the defence of necessity—but obviously counsel for the prosecution, and the prosecution as a whole, are under a duty to anticipate what any defences might be.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether any request by the defence for the Attorney-General's legal advice to the Prime Minister on the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq would have been covered by privilege. That question did not arise, and therefore the question of whether the Attorney-General had to decide whether he would claim legal privilege did not arise either, because the request for disclosure had not been made.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. He asked whether it was now the case that no defence of necessity could ever be rebutted. All I can say is that before we rush to any conclusions about where this case leaves the state of the law, careful consideration must be given—and no doubt will be given—by the Home Secretary. It will be for him to come to the House if he has any views that he wishes to convey to it about the state of the Act. As for whether the prospect of a conviction receded because of the anticipation of public distrust of the Government—I think that that is what the Hon. Gentleman was alleging—that was not an issue in relation to the discontinuance of the case.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the Official Secrets Act would be reviewed. I think that that is a matter for the Home Secretary. As I have said, in all cases in which there has been a significant event in the course of a prosecution, the implications for the substantive law that might arise from that prosecution are always considered. I said no more than that.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government should waive confidentiality—whether either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General should waive the normal rule, which is that legal advice to Government is confidential. He suggested that it should be waived. I remind him that because of exceptional public interest in the question of the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq, the Attorney-General did, on 17 March, set out the basis on which he believed in the lawfulness of the use of force in Iraq; and he was able to reaffirm this morning, in another place, that his opinion of whether his view of the law was right had not changed.

No doubt many people will have examined the law on the use of force, and, as we know from lectures and newspapers, many of them do not agree with the Attorney-General. I should point out that when the Prime Minister appoints the Attorney-General, he cannot shop around for legal advice. If the Attorney-General tells him that he cannot do something, he cannot do it. He is obliged to take the Attorney-General's advice: that is the basis and the nature of the appointment. Similarly, if the Attorney-General tells the Prime Minister that he is entitled to do something, the Prime Minister is entitled to rely on that, irrespective of whether many other people take a different view.

I realise that I have left many questions unanswered, but I can at least explain to the House what the Attorney-General's responsibilities are under this procedure, and make it clear that he fulfilled them with integrity.

I thank the Solicitor-General for giving me notice of her statement.

When deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution, the Attorney-General must be convinced first that there is a realistic chance of success and secondly that it is in the public interest to proceed. He believed that both conditions were met in this case. My understanding is that the evidential test was passed on the basis of Ms Gun's first interview. Despite what the Solicitor-General has just said, I am still not sure what has changed since that first interview, and what assessment was made subsequently to change the decision to prosecute.

The Solicitor-General has said that it was clear at an early stage that Ms Gun would raise the defence of necessity. I concede—and it is entirely proper—that we must safeguard our intelligence. The defence made a submission two days ago seeking disclosure of the Government's legal advice on the legality of the Iraq war, because it believed that unless the Government could prove they were acting legally, Katharine Gun had the defence of acting in the public interest. Yesterday, Treasury counsel informed the court that the prosecution was to be abandoned. The Solicitor-General will be aware that there has been considerable speculation that it was abandoned because the Government feared that at the trial evidence would be adduced of the grave misgivings of many officials in a number of Departments of State about the legality of the war with Iraq. I respect both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, but unless they put in the public domain, or submit to Lord Butler's inquiry, the compelling legal reasons for the withdrawal from the prosecution, we can only assume that the law officers have capitulated to the Executive, and have failed in their duty to the House and the country.

I take exception to the suggestion that the Law Officers have done that, and that the Attorney-General failed to carry out his duties as he was required to in this matter. Let me say most emphatically that he did not. If the hon. Gentleman accepts what I said in my statement, he will agree that that is not what has happened.

The hon. Gentleman said that many officials had misgivings. That might well have been the case, but the question of whether the Prime Minister had a lawful basis for the use of force is one on which he takes the advice of the Attorney-General. It is not for him then to second-guess that by taking the view of many officials who have misgivings. The system has to run like that. I assure the House that the enabling that is conferred on the Prime Minister by the Attorney-General's saying that he can do something is matched by the Attorney-General's ability to tell the Prime Minister or his ministerial colleagues that they cannot do something. It works both ways.

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether there was a connection between the discontinuance of the case and the request for disclosure. I can reaffirm that the discontinuance was not connected to a request for disclosure of the Attorney-General's full legal advice or the anticipation of such a request being made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. I may not have been able to answer many other questions that he would like to put, but I hope that he accepts that there is no connection between the anticipation of a request or the submission of a request for disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of the war in Iraq and the discontinuance of this case.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Attorney-General must consider two things when giving his consent to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act: the evidential test of whether there is a realistic prospect of a conviction and the public interest test. I remind him of something that I know he knows, which is that the evidential test does not become a matter for the Attorney-General's consent. The evidential test remains the custody of the prosecution. Consent is a wider and different issue about the public interest. The evidence was regarded as sufficient and the Attorney-General was asked whether the case was in the public interest. What changed was that, as the case progressed, Treasury counsel took the view that there was no longer a sufficiency of evidence, and he brought that to the Attorney-General's attention. At that point, the Attorney-General was not considering whether the case was in the public interest, but whether there was sufficiency of evidence.

Hon. Members will know that there must be evidence not just that supports the charge, but to rebut the defence. The evidence that is available changes over time in every case. Much has bee n said about this being a sudden decision. The House would rightly criticise the authorities—[Interruption.] Sorry, am I taking too long?

—Yes.

Order. I do not think that it was anything I said, but I was intending to say that the exchanges between Front-Bench Members have now taken half an hour. I appeal to hon. Members. There is time-limited and important business still to come, and notwithstanding the legal complexities of this subject, I would appreciate brief questions and equally brief answers.

Are the views expressed under the Shawcross exercise furnished to the defence, and did they contribute in any way to the decision that was taken yesterday?

As I understand it, the Shawcross letters are not furnished to the defence. They go to the Attorney-General's decision whether the prosecution is in the public interest, and are not a matter of evidence.

I apologise to the House for taking so long to answer questions put by Front-Bench Members, but these are complicated and nuanced issues of some constitutional depth. I would rather choose my words carefully and get it right than mislead the House. However, I realise that other hon. Members have tabled urgent questions and they want to be able to ask them.

GCHQ is in my constituency, and Katharine Gun is one of my constituents. I have supported her through the recent difficult months, during which she has felt vulnerable, and I felt the relief that she experienced yesterday. Have the Government given any thought to compensation for legal costs and any other compensation that it may be appropriate to give Ms Gun to help her to rebuild her life?

Obviously, it will be for the defence to apply for legal costs if it is so minded, and the processes will be applied in the usual way.

On the public interest test, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, through the Enterprise Act 2002, the Department of Trade and Industry has virtually scrapped public interest concerns in its area of responsibility? How safe is the public interest in the Government's hands?

In her statement, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to ministerial colleagues who may have an interest in the cases, because of public interest considerations. Is not there a distinction between ministerial interests and the public interest?

Ministerial interest is not a question of curiosity, but whether Departments are affected by the scope of the issues in any particular prosecution. My hon. Friend asked whether the Department of Trade and Industry takes the public interest sufficiently into account. I was not aware that DTI prosecutors no longer operate the evidential and public interest tests. If that is so, I will correct the position, but that is not the situation as I understand it.

Is not it plain that Katharine Gun was going to allege that what she did was necessary and justified? Is not it astonishing that the Government did not feel able to rebut that contention? Does not the right hon. and learned Lady understand that many of us who opposed the war strongly suspect that in the Government's possession are documents that they would have been obliged to produce that would haw shown that the war was unlawful and unnecessary? It was because of their reluctance to put such documents before the court that they felt unable to rebut the defence.

No, that was not the case. It is not a question of a judgment having been made that if we went ahead it would have involved us putting forward these documents, so we decided to pull the plug. That was not the case. All I can refer to in relation to the evidential obstacles is what I said in my opening statement, and that is the position

The trial of Katharine Gun would inevitably have had to address the question whether Mr. Frank Koza, senior official of the United States National Security Agency, had requested the Government's help on an eavesdropping "surge" on delegates from six non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. This is a matter of the gravest public interest, which has been heightened today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who was asked whether British spies were

"instructed to carry out operations within the UN on people like Kofi Annan"

and she replied, "Yes, absolutely."

What route is available to us now to seek the truth before the House?

I can at least reassure my hon. Friend that, in all respects, the Government act within international and domestic law in their dealings at home and abroad.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will understand when I say that I found much of what she said pretty unconvincing. Surely it is in the public interest to prosecute such a blatant breach of the Official Secrets Act. The Shawcross exercise seems to have played an enormous part in the decision-making process. It certainly leaves me unconvinced by the explanation that we have just been given.

With respect to the right hon. and learned Lady's assertion that the Prime Minister is obliged to take his law from the Attorney-General, I refer her to a letter I received from the previous Clerk of the House, Sir William McKay. He quotes Balfour in 1901, and says:

'The Law Officers have no control over the legal action of the government. A minister is not obliged to take his law from the Attorney General'. Accountability thus rests with the (ministerial) decision-taker."

Therefore, it is open to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to release the opinion of the Attorney-General, and should do so.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision on any action by a Department of State or the Prime Minister is for the Minister concerned or the Prime Minister. The legality of the action is a question for the Attorney-General. That is quite straightforward. It is not open for a Minister to obtain the Attorney-General's legal advice, for the Attorney-General to say "That is not within domestic or international law" and for the Minister then to go ahead and do it. That is not what happens. If it did, it would be unacceptable. I emphasise that that is not what happened. There is not a take it or leave it attitude about the legality of Government actions. There is not a shopping around for whose advice to take. The Government have made it clear that they will not act in breach of international or domestic law, and they have only one authoritative source of legal advice, aside from the courts, and that is the Attorney-General.

And Balfour?

I am sorry. I cannot comment on Balfour. That would take too long.

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman found what I said unconvincing because I have tried to be as clear as possible. He says that it seems that the Shawcross exercise played a large part in the discontinuance of the case. I do not know how many times I have to repeat it, but neither the Shawcross exercise nor any considerations arising from it played any part in the discontinuance. The Attorney-General spoke to the Foreign Secretary on both 14 and 24 February; it was not a secondary Shawcross exercise along the lines of "Shall we drop this case? What do you think?" It was simply a matter of reporting to him about evidential developments that had been identified by Treasury counsel in the process of the case and that materially affected the case to the extent that, as we now know, the prosecution decided to discontinue it.

Given the reasonable assumption that the defence of necessity must have been based upon a belief by the defence that the war was illegal, and since my right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Government would not be able to rebut that defence, does it not follow that the Government are not able to disprove the assertion that the war was illegal?

No. The defence of necessity can be based on many issues.

As one who deeply deplores the actions of Katharine Gun, and is somewhat bemused and disappointed by the Attorney-General's decision, I should like to ask the Solicitor-General what steps can be taken to preserve the trust and confidence that are and must be at the heart of any civilised Government in a democratic society. In that context, how soon can we have a review of the Official Secrets Act?

I cannot add to what I have already said, except that the question of the implications for the Act will have to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Many of us must surely still be puzzled as to what was new; what of fundamental importance happened between the initial decision of the Attorney-General and the decision to discontinue. We know that the defence of necessity was anticipated. We know that any public anxiety about the legal basis of the war was a constant. We know that the defence had not yet made any request for particulars. What is the lacuna in the law that has been revealed? Will it be stopped? Is there not otherwise a great danger that other people in a position similar to that of Ms Gun will feel that they can disobey their obligations under the Official Secrets Act and talk to newspapers?

It was an issue of evidence in this case, not of a lacuna in the law. I agree with my right hon. Friend; he is right to say that it was not a question of any late identification of the likelihood of the defence of necessity being raised. That had been anticipated from the outset. I repeat also that he is right that it was not a question of whether the disclosure of the Attorney-General's legal advice would be requested. That was not an issue.

I apologise to the House, as I appreciate that without being able to go through all the intelligence that comprised all the evidence forming not just the basis of the charge, but the basis on which the defence would be rebutted, hon. Members will not feel fully in the picture. But one of the characteristics of the security services is that people are supposed not to be put fully in the picture.

The Solicitor-General has necessarily left some questions unanswered. None the less, she has been able to answer certain questions, and the House will have noticed the emphasis with which she has answered particular questions. Does she agree that it is a very good thing that she, and the Attorney-General in another place, are in a position to come to Parliament so promptly to deal with these matters and to be able, as she and other hon. Members have, to steer their way round those areas that have to be kept to, as it were, the discretion of the prosecuting authorities? Would it not do enormous damage to the House and its standing in the country if, as a result of some jejune notions about the separation of powers, these issues could not be ventilated here?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I should like time to reflect on whether it was a thoroughly good thing for me to come to the House today to make this statement. Certainly, the Attorney-General takes very seriously his accountability to Parliament, through another place, and I take very seriously my responsibility to be accountable to this House. For the most part—nearly wholly, but not exclusively so—we exercise our responsibilities in the public interest, not in a party political way and not in the Government's interest. To the extent that we can, we are open with Opposition Back-Benchers and Front-Benchers, as we are with our ministerial colleagues and Back-Benchers. Law Officers are in a special position. That is why I emphasise that there are procedures, that they are robust and that they have been followed.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot speak lawyerly language, and do not wish to do so. Is not this case a very simple one, in that the Government decided that they could not convince a British jury that they had gone to war legally?

That is not the case. My hon. Friend is entitled to assert it, but I ask hon. Members at some point to believe what I have said, which is that it was not an issue about the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of war or about second-guessing the extent to which the jury trusted the Government. I ask my hon. Friend to believe that that is the situation. He might well be mystified as to what happened, but that certainly is the situation.

The Solicitor-General ha said many times what the reasons were not for there being no realistic prospect of conviction. She said that she could not give a detailed basis for that, because it concerned intelligence issues. Is it fair from that to reach the conclusion that it was for matters of intelligence that she reached that conclusion?

As I have said, it was a question of what evidence was available within the normal limitations, including statutory limitations, not a question of what evidence was comfortable, both to prove the charge and to rebut the defence. It was not the case that the Government looked at the evidence and decided that they did not want it in court and therefore pulled the plug. Were it the case, the Director of Public Prosecution's statement would not be true.

That is exactly what happened.

I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is intervening from a sedentary position: the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a statement, which I have read to the House. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept that he has made that statement and that it is the truth.

The Solicitor-General said that many questions remain unanswered and that further questions perhaps need to be asked. May I ask her one more? Given that the case against Katharine Gun was dropped and no evidence was put forward, can we all assume that the Solicitor-General and the Government accept Katharine Gun's defence of public interest overriding her loyalty—or not—to her employer, and that she will now be reinstated in the service?

That is a very good question and I am actually going to answer it. The Government do not accept the public interest defence, of necessity. As my hon. Friend will know, in the Shayler case a decision was taken in the Court of Appeal that did not then go to the House of Lords, in which the Government made their position clear on that issue.

On whether this was an eleventh-hour, last-minute discontinuance, perhaps I should remind the House that this case had not been set down for trial and no trial date had been set. This was not an eleventh-hour decision; in legal terms, it was taken quite early in the morning.

The case against Katharine Gun arose initially because of allegations that GCHQ was involved in spying on members of the UN Security Council, as has been amplified this morning by the former Secretary of State for International Development. Does the Solicitor-General accept that any such action is a clear violation not only of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, but —perhaps more importantly—of the 1946 general convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations? Article 2(3) of the convention states:

"The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative judicial or legislative action."

If such operations did take place, those who authorised them and carried them out were themselves in breach of the law. Will there be an investigation, and will action be taken against those who authorised and carried out these surveillance operations?

I am afraid that all that I can say in response to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government comply at all times with their international treaty obligations, as well as with domestic and international law. That is not just a throwaway line—it is a very serious process.

While we are left in this mystified state, it is fair for Members to speculate about the reasons why this prosecution was withdrawn. I wonder whether, a la Clive Ponting, there was a fear that no jury in the land would actually find this woman guilty. Echoing the points made earlier, I wonder whether the substantive issue is being buried under the various legalities. The substantive issue is whether or not we acted at the behest of the American Government, and perhaps it should be referred, at the very least, to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so that these questions can be investigated in the usual way and we can have a report on that substantive issue.

Obviously, the question of what the Intelligence and Security Committee decides to look at is a matter for that Committee, which regularly hears from the Attorney-General in person.

My hon. Friend wonders whether no jury would ever have found this young woman guilty. The nature or characteristics of this particular defendant did not contribute to this decision, so I can reassure him that his speculation on that point is wrong

Has the right hon. and learned Lady any notion at all—she certainly has not expressed it this afternoon—of the enormous damage that this shambolic incident has done to the credibility of the Official Secrets Act and therefore to the credibility of our ability to keep our secrets, and to the confidence that our allies and partners have in that ability; and to our national security and safety in an age of international terrorism? Does she agree that this morning, even greater damage was done to those essential elements, and will she tell the House now whether the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has herself signed the Official Secrets Act?

I think that Ministers are covered by the Official Secrets Act whether or not they sign it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the substantive law is a matter for this House, and that the operation of the law is a matter for the independent police activities and prosecution service. If there is to be a discussion of the substantive law, so be it, but so far as the independence of the police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned, that must remain.

If the view was reached that there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and if the defence of necessity was known to the Crown at the outset, does that mean that the Crown decided that it could no longer rely on evidence on which it was initially going to rely, for reasons of admissibility, credibility or reliability? How on earth does the defence of necessity have any bearing on the decision to discontinue proceedings?

The defence of necessity has to be looked at in respect of the evidence in any particular case. I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have repeatedly said: when counsel reviewed the case—that happens on an ongoing basis—his view was that there was no longer sufficient evidence.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that the Government's inability to prosecute a civil servant who leaked state secrets to the press—particularly given that she worked at GCHQ—will send a shiver down the spine of every man and woman who works for our intelligence services? What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that, in their review of the Official Secrets Act, the security of those people is paramount?

The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are ones for reflection on the part of the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. He speaks of the Government's inability to prosecute, and without labouring the point I should perhaps remind him that it is not the Government who prosecute under the Official Secrets Act; it is the prosecution service, and that is indeed what happened in this case. The Official Secrets Act has a long history, which I shall not go into.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the reply that the Solicitor-General gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) being subject to the Official Secrets Act, have you received any indication that a Minister will make a statement to this House about whether an offence was committed through a former Cabinet Minister's making remarks such as those that the right hon. Lady made on the "Today" programme this morning?

No such communication has been received, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is not the custom to make allegations about the conduct of other Members of this House in a point of order. Indeed, any such remarks are extraneous to the strict scope of today's statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given what the Solicitor-General said about the need for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House, would it be in order to suggest that we have clarification that he will in fact do so?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are other ways of pursuing that matter. It is not something on which the Chair can rule.