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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 25 October—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Political Interference in University Admissions Policy", followed by a debate entitled "Government's Failure on the Siting of Wind Farms".

Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.

Tuesday 26 October—A debate on programming, deferred Divisions, carry-over, short speeches and the removal of references to strangers.

The necessary motions for the debate have been printed in this morning's Order Paper, with explanatory memorandums available in the Vote Office.

Wednesday 27 October—Remaining stages of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords].

Thursday 28 October—Second Reading of the School Transport Bill.

Friday 29 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 1 November—Second Reading of the Gambling Bill.

Tuesday 2 November—Remaining stages of the Children Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 3 November—Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Body's triennial review of parliamentary pay and allowances, followed by a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the Sessional Orders and resolutions.

Thursday 4 November—A debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 5 November—The House will not be sitting.

As I outlined to the House last week, the printed Commons calendar is now available from the Vote Office.

I welcomed the calendar last week; it is a useful document.

I thank the Leader of the House for at last finding time for debates on the Procedure Committee reports. Given that we have had to wait almost a year, does he understand the disappointment at this morning's negative Government response on programming? The Committee's proposals seem modest enough, so will he not think again? It is in the interests of the House to find an agreed, lasting solution to this thorny issue.

On Sessional Orders, given that, again, the Leader of the House has had a year to think about the matter, and that he has support from all parts of the House, including Mr. Speaker, will he confirm that he will table proposals to tackle the continuing problems in Parliament square?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding two reforms to next Tuesday's business? Almost a year ago, the European Scrutiny Committee asked him to change Standing Orders to allow it to deliberate in public. That would provide the public and business with an early warning system for European proposals. The CBI has welcomed the idea, so why not do it next Tuesday?

Secondly, I have been pressing the Leader of the House for progress on the Osmotherly rules. Will he propose a forum, perhaps a Sub-Committee of the Liaison Committee, where disputes between Select Committees and the Government over witnesses and documents could be resolved by discussion?

Can the Leader of the House report any progress on my request last week for a debate on the middle east?

May we have an urgent statement on the report that the chief executive of Tees Valley Regeneration has been campaigning for a yes vote in the north-east regional assembly referendum? Does not that breach Government guidelines that impose a purdah period on any person whose expenses are defrayed from public funds or by a local authority, under section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000?

Finally, may we have a statement on the British grand prix? This country is the home of international motor racing. Mr. Ecclestone says that the grand prix has been cancelled. Media reports suggest that Ministers have been involved in discussions. May we be told about the present position and what can be done? It would be very sad indeed for the nation if the event were lost.

As an enthusiastic Formula 1 fan, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), in whose constituency Silverstone is sited, that it would be disastrous for British motor sport if the British grand prix were struck off the Formula 1 calendar. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism has been working tirelessly with motor sport's authorities. However, I can say from personal knowledge that the politics of Formula 1 is even more difficult than the politics of the House. The internal difficulties in Formula 1 are legendary, but I hope that they will not stand in the way of the British grand prix at Silverstone being reinstated for next year. I thank the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for raising the matter.

We have listened to all representations made on programming, including that of the Procedure Committee, and have proposed a sensible approach. We have adopted several proposals that were suggested. Hon. Members will have the chance to debate the matter next week.

I understand and agree with the concern about Sessional Orders and the situation in Parliament square expressed by the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and, indeed, Mr. Speaker himself. We will signal our intentions during the debate. Primary legislation will be necessary, and we will make proposals at the appropriate time.

On the question of European regulations and legislation and an early warning system, I strongly support the principle of mainstreaming European matters rather than confining them only to the expert group of hon. Members who conduct such effective scrutiny in the European Scrutiny Committee. The hon. Gentleman should support the new European constitutional treaty because, for the first time, it would allow Parliament to vet any new proposal from the European Commission, which would be a big advance for democracy. Given the cause that he argued from the Dispatch Box a moment or two ago, he should back the Government in giving Parliament much greater powers on new European proposals.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Osmotherly rules. I addressed the Liaison Committee the other day, and we had a good sitting during which I was questioned rigorously and gave my views. I stated that the Government will now embrace the presumption that requests from a Select Committee for Ministers or civil servants, including special advisers, to appear before it will be agreed to, subject to Ministers having the final decision. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. There is no need for a sub-committee. The House is paralysed by "committee-itis", and that it not a criticism of Select Committees—[Laughter.] There is a proliferation of sub-committees and one can never find out who is making decisions. I am a great fan of Select Committees—I made that clear the other day—but I am not a fan of setting up more sub-committees instead of resolving matters in the usual way.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate on the middle east, about which we are all anxious. The Prime Minister has said that immediately after the American elections in early November—10 or so days away—he will try to get an urgent reactivation of the middle east peace negotiations.

There is a clear political disagreement about the north-east referendum, although not about its rules, which are absolutely clear and must be adhered to. The truth is that the Conservatives do not want the north-east of England to have a strong voice for its regional interests. They want to see it stuck in the past, while next-door Scotland has its own national voice, while Wales has its own national voice through its Assembly and while London has its own national voice. The Conservatives wish to deny the north-east the chance to get its own national voice. Anyone who campaigns in the referendum, including Ministers such as me, must abide by the rules.

The Leader of the House just said that he is a great fan of Select Committees. May I remind him that the Procedure Committee is a Select Committee with all-party representation and that it has a Government majority? Its report on programming therefore has the support of all parties represented on the Committee. Will he assure us that, as this is a House matter, it will be subject to a free vote? There have been occasions when Government Whips have been seen to steer hon. Members into a particular Lobby. Can we be sure that there will be a free vote for Government Members?

Another Select Committee that I hope the Leader of the House takes even more seriously, as he chairs it, is the Modernisation Committee, which produced an excellent report earlier this year. I hope that he can now tell us that progress is being made. May I remind him that the report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public", contains an important section about the role of the media? Does he propose to timetable a debate on that report? What progress is being made? May we have a debate shortly?

Does the Leader of the House accept that the role of the media in interpreting what happens within this building is extremely important, because many of our constituents learn what happens and how we operate from the media? The problem with the media today is that many people do not seem to understand the role of a Member of Parliament. In his discussions on this section of the report, will he emphasise the need for transparency and freedom of information in respect of editors and their role in public life? For example, perhaps he should suggest that they publish their salaries and expenses, the full cost of their offices and staff and how they would run two offices and two homes that are 250 miles apart. A bit of comparison would be useful for our constituents and for readers and viewers. Is the Leader of the House prepared to have those discussions? Does he think that they would be helpful, enabling us to understand what editors do, just as our electors understand better what we do?

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's points, as he will understand. On the question of progress on the Modernisation Committee's report "Connecting Parliament with the Public", I receive monthly reports from the Clerk's Department on the progress that is being made in all these important areas. We want to make sure that Westminster and this House are user-friendly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiastic supporter of that. We also have a progress meeting next week on the proposals for a visitors centre, which is different from the reception facility, to which the House has already agreed.

I am a fan of Select Committees. It is important that they hold Ministers to account. Ministers in this Government have appeared before Select Committees more than Ministers in any other Government since Select Committees were first established. That is part of the Government's greater accountability to the House of Commons. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made more statements to the House than Mr. Major or Mrs. Thatcher made in the equivalent periods. He also appears before the Liaison Committee, which never happened before.

Of course there will be a free vote on the Procedure Committee issues and the question of programming. We need to keep it in perspective. We have an honest difference of opinion, and we might as well just accept it. The hon. Gentleman, along with members of the official Opposition, seems to be saying that he wants to go back to the old days of all-night sittings and filibustering. We have introduced a sensible approach to programming, which was called for before we came to power and was broadly endorsed by Conservative Members under the previous Administration. When programming works well, it is in the interests of the House because both in Committee and on the Floor of the House it allows hon. Members to focus on the issues that they want to focus on rather than listening to filibusters. Where programming does not work well—there are instances of that—it is usually the responsibility of those involved in drawing up and agreeing the timetable through the usual channels. We must bear it in mind that, by and large, programming is in the interests of the House.

My right hon. Friend may have seen a photograph in The Times today of some of our colleagues promoting breast cancer awareness. That underlines the importance of the scientific research that goes unpromoted in this country and of the superb work in our hospitals. Will he find time for an early debate on such an important subject—not only breast cancer but the work that is going on in all cancer services—so that the people whom we represent have a truer picture of what is happening?

I did indeed see the photograph—it was an excellent way for women Members of Parliament to raise the profile of an important subject. In the past decade, British women have experienced the biggest decrease in the world of deaths from breast cancer, and that is welcome. Under the Government, 99.6 per cent. of women whom GPs refer urgently with suspected breast cancer to a consultant are seen within two weeks. We are making rapid progress but a serious problem remains and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.

May we have an early debate on the proposed security arrangements for this place? Many of us are worried that primary responsibility could be transferred from the existing authorities to the police, bearing it in mind that most of the most recent security upsets, for example, at Buckingham palace and Windsor castle, have been on premises for which the police were primarily responsible.

Mr. Speaker has ruled on whether security matters should be debated on the Floor of the House and we must bear that in mind. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can say that some of the press speculation and spin in the past week could not be further from the truth. The Government have no proposal to trample over the sovereign independence of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

The Joint Committee on Security and the House of Commons Commission agree that they want to establish a proper security co-ordinator for the Palace, which is one building for the purposes of security. We need a proper, professional modern approach, with the police and the security service having constant operational lines to whoever fills the new position. However, ultimately the holder of the new post should be answerable and accountable to Mr. Speaker in the Commons and the Chairman of Committees in the Lords. That is the right way in which to proceed.

On 7 October, under the authority of the mutual legal assistance treaty and, we believe, at the instigation of the FBI, agents visited the offices of Indymedia and removed its computer servers. Indymedia is an international news agency that has extensively covered investigations into the war and the Bush and Berlusconi regimes. May we have a statement next week to explain on what authority the action was taken, what representations foreign Governments made and the justification for the action?

I am not aware of the details of the matter but the Home Secretary will have noted my hon. Friend's points.

May I ask for an urgent debate in Government time about reports that the successful British food fortnight event is under threat because of lack of Government support? The event has boosted the regional food and drink industry by approximately £10 million in the past three years. It reinforces the connection between farmers, local sourcing and customers. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the organiser, Alexia Robinson, that we are running a nationwide enterprise like a cottage industry?

Food fortnight week is an important initiative—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to raise food fortnight; I understand that he could not do that in DEFRA questions. In giving more resources to the Food Standards Agency and focusing on improved standards throughout the country and on diet, the Government are with the hon. Gentleman. It is also important to get increased markets for British food closer to home and to try to persuade the supermarkets to co-operate with that objective.

What plans has my right hon. Friend to give time for legislation to enable Wales to become smoke-free in public places? The Welsh Assembly has voted for that and requested legislation. New research has been published this week and Liverpool is moving forward on the issue. What about Wales? What can we do to ensure that Wales becomes smoke-free in public places?

I am very sympathetic to the cause, which my hon. Friend has always prosecuted vigorously, and I note her point about Liverpool. The Secretary of State for Health will publish a White Paper on public health within a matter of weeks, and this issue will be addressed. My hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that there is now a serious debate about how we strike a balance between individual rights and public health in respect of both smoking and passive smoking.

Returning to the serious issue of the future of the British grand prix, may I emphasise to the Leader of the House how important it is that the Minister for Sport and Tourism comes sooner rather than later to make a statement on the Floor of the House? Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will be robust with Mr. Ecclestone, despite the fact that he is a very generous donor to the Labour party?

I think that he was an "un-donor" in the end—the party never got the money. This is very difficult and complicated, and we are all in the same position. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is keen from the point of view of not just motor racing sports fans such as us both, but Britain's pre-eminence in high-performance engineering. We are world leaders in that field, and we must ensure that we protect our position against severe competition, and it is absolutely crucial that we keep the British grand prix at Silverstone and on the Formula 1 calendar. The Minister for Sport and Tourism has been closely engaged in the negotiations; ultimately, however, Formula 1 and the FIA must agree which grand prix, from China to Britain, appear on the calendar. I hope that, even at this late stage, an agreement will be reached between the British Racing Drivers Club and Mr. Ecclestone, in the interests not just of Britain but of world sport because Silverstone is known throughout the world as the home of motor sport.

I have previously raised the issue of the Forestdale Forum community centre in Croydon, whose trustees fear the forfeiture of their lease by Warborough Investments, which has not acted illegally but whose activities led local trustees to ask to be given legal support. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following my campaign, Croydon council has now agreed to become a joint trustee to provide that support? Will he welcome that and find time to debate a review of land legislation to protect such community centres, which provide valuable family and social support, more comprehensively across London and Britain in future?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tireless campaigning and strong leadership on the issue. Although the issue is specific to Croydon, I am sure that it is of general interest throughout the country. I pay tribute to the good work of the forum, the trustees and similar people throughout Britain who work tirelessly without reward for the good of their local communities. If it is possible to find time for him to raise the issue in another place, I am sure that he will seek to do so.

The Leader of the House will remember the point of order that I made last week about the troubles in Parliament square—not on the question of the permanent demonstration that has been alluded to today, which does indeed require primary legislation, but on the abusive, antisocial behaviour not only of the permanent demonstrator but of visiting demonstrators who fill the square with amplified noise, which can only serve to spoil the amenity for visitors and imperil the security of the House by distracting the police and security guards who are trying to protect us. I asked whether he would pick up the phone and ask the police why they are not taking action in respect of that noise, which they would take if it were occurring elsewhere. Has he made that call? If he has not, may I suggest that he ring 0207–321 7501 and ask to speak to Superintendent Peter Terry? If he does not do that, I will, and I hope that many colleagues will do so and that, in the unlikely event that the politically correct media report this, members of the public will do so as well.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is going to ring that number, and I wish him well. I have been involved in a lot of detailed discussions and consultations about this matter, which is difficult because of the state of the law, but it is irritating—hence the announcement that I made only moments ago.

May we have a debate on violent video games next week? My right hon. Friend will know that I have raised in the House the case of Stefan Pakeerah, the Leicester schoolboy who was murdered by a friend who was obsessed with the game Manhunt. Next Friday, the makers of that video will release a new version of Grand Theft Auto that is said to be even more violent than the previous game. May we have a statement or a debate, or some kind of ministerial action before that new game is released?

I share my hon. Friend's amazement about such videos, which are monitored by the authorities, both the police and the Government. No doubt his points will have been noted because they are very serious.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that there have been ongoing discussions about a proposal to extend the remuneration of Chairmen of Select Committees to include members of the Chairmen's Panel and other officers? Can he give any further information on that subject?

I reassure the hon. Lady that we have, in fact, agreed to ask the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider the remuneration arrangements of members of the Chairmen's Panel. The Chairman of Ways and Means has made representations to me. Obviously, it is a matter for the SSRB—an independent body that sets all our pay and allowance conditions in the House. It is important that people remember that we do not set our own levels; they are recommended by an independent report. I hope that the SSRB will consider that request sympathetically. I am personally sympathetic to it because the hon. Members who serve on the Chairmen's Panel do a very good job, which is often not properly acknowledged, and the Chairman of Ways and Means has come up with a good proposal, which I personally support, although it is for the SSRB to make a recommendation.

I appreciate that a defence debate will be held in a few moments, but is there not a case for a separate statement on the four Upholder class submarines, which the Royal Navy decommissioned a decade ago, that were sold to Canada? My right hon. Friend will know that one of those submarines, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire, with loss of life—sparks as big as golf balls ricocheted down the submarine—and that an inquiry has been set up by our sister House of Commons in Ottawa, where the incident is causing huge concern and tremendous controversy and press comment. It warrants a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence.

Like all hon. Members, I am aware of the concern about and problems with that matter, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. The Secretary of State for Defence will follow me to make a statement on another matter, but my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise the issue in the defence debate later this afternoon if he chooses to do so.

The fact that the Cabinet discussed this morning the redeployment of the Black Watch in Iraq clearly shows the importance of the issue and that, ultimately, a political decision is involved. If the Cabinet can have a political debate about the redeployment of the Black Watch in Iraq, why cannot the House of Commons?

The Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House in a matter of minutes to answer any question that the hon. Lady might want to put to him, if time allows. Those issues should be raised with the Secretary of State for Defence in the proper fashion. He is coming to the House to make a statement at the earliest opportunity following the Cabinet meeting today, and I should have thought that she welcomed that.

Last week, my right hon. Friend indicated that he would consider the suggestion that the House might debate the House of Commons Commission's annual report. Has he had an opportunity to consider that suggestion in the past week? If not, when will he be able to do so? Will he consider scheduling an annual debate on the publication of each annual report? Will he perhaps put that at the back of the estimable calendar that he has introduced today?

I am not sure that it would be sensible to put such a debate in the calendar because of the nature of arranging business. However, having consulted informally with Mr. Speaker, I will provide time for a debate on the annual report of the House of Commons Commission, as requested by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). There is universal support for that, including from the shadow Leader of the House. The report is a fine one, which I would say as I am a member of the Commission. It shows the important work that the Commission undertakes and will provide us with an opportunity to debate all sorts of matters that come under its remit.

Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on business rates to be made by a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? The Government have recognised the problem with small businesses and are considering a discount scheme. However, the businesses in my area are concerned that they have come up with the wrong solution. In particular, the National Farmers Union argues that its rates are increasing by £1,000 and it is struggling to employ another person. If it could be part of a discount scheme, it would employ someone else, as would other businesses.

The Minister for Local and Regional Government will make a statement on those matters in the usual way as part of the normal cycle, as he does every year. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to scrutinise that.

The Leader of the House, in various parties over the decades, has campaigned effectively on libertarian issues, including in the '80s on the level of the UK prison population. Does he share my dismay that it is heading inexorably towards 80,000? Does he not believe that the time is right for a full debate on penal policy, not least because in the past few days Martin Narey, the new chief of the National Offender Management Service, has threatened the Prison Officers Association with prison privatisation? Does he have that power? Is my right hon. Friend as dismayed as I am at that negotiating tactic?

I am not sure that that description is accurate, but no doubt my hon. Friend will pursue it. I think he will welcome the fact that the publication of the latest quarterly report from the British crime survey shows that the risk of being a victim of crime is the lowest since the survey began under the Conservatives in 1981—in other words, for more than 20 years. Crime in England and Wales has fallen 7 per cent. Violent crime is down by 6 per cent. and violence involving any injuries has dropped by 12 per cent. There has been a 10 per cent. fall in the use of handguns, and firearm offences show a 15 per cent. drop in fatal injuries. There are still big problems, including gun crime, but we are making incredible progress compared with where we were years ago.

It would be ungracious of me not to thank the Leader of the House for providing time to debate two Procedure Committee reports, one on programming and the other on Sessional Orders and resolutions.

On next week's debate on programming, which will include the subject of short speeches, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, following what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the Committee is dominated by Labour Members and we agreed a report that we thought produced a balance on programming which would make it more acceptable to the House as a whole and all the political parties within it? Even if he will not change his mind at this stage on his response to it and the motions that he has tabled, will he guarantee that the matter will be decided on a genuinely free vote? The Procedure Committee, which I chair with great honour, is deeply concerned about the way in which the House can do the job that people elect it to do.

The hon. Gentleman is one of the last people in the House whom I would ever accuse of being ungracious.

I understand the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. We thought carefully about the Procedure Committee's recommendations and compared them with the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. Throughout this time, we have tried to build a consensus on programming. Some of the points that we have taken on board show that that is the case—[Interruption.] I understand that there is a Liberal-Conservative coalition on the subject, but it would be interesting to know whether the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would reverse programming if they ever got into government together. I think that it has worked well in the interests of all Members, not just the Government.

My right hon. Friend will recall that when the draft Disability Discrimination Bill was published it was welcomed with great acclaim by disabled people, their organisations and hon. Members on both sides of the House. He will also recall the fanfare of approval it received in the report of the Joint Committee that scrutinised it, on which I had the honour of serving. Indeed, the Government's response to that report was also favourably received. Will he assure the House that there is no reason why the Bill cannot make rapid and successful progress, with support from both sides of the House, from now on?

I agree that the Bill is vital to the interests of people with disabilities. That is why the Government were anxious to introduce it as soon as possible, which is why I announced last week that we would introduce it shortly. It is therefore with great disappointment that we discovered that the Opposition in the House of Lords are trying to block its early progress. It is not for me to go into the usual channels' negotiations, but we made a proposal that would have allowed early progress on the Bill, and that has not been supported. That is very disappointing. I hope that the Opposition in the House of Lords reconsider their decision.

I also welcome the debate on Sessional Orders and Parliament square, some 11 months after I first asked for it.

Will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on police authority funding? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House spent yesterday talking to their police authorities. Hampshire constabulary and others are deeply concerned that the resources available to the Home Office will not even fund a standstill budget next year. The opportunity of getting the council tax payer to fund the difference is not available because of capping. Does he want to fight a possible general election against a background of reduced police authority funding? Can we help him avoid that by debating it soon?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. Perhaps I did not make this clear to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), but let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a free vote on all House matters, as there always is.

On police authority funding, there is no question of cuts. The Government have put record investment into policing. Police numbers are now at an historic high. Some 12,500 extra police officers have been recruited since we came into power. Any blips or difficulties in the process of settling individual police authority budgets in the coming year should be seen against that background of continued substantial increase in police funding.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the abuse by some hon. Members and political parties of the parliamentary procedure for submitting written questions so that they can create a dishonest league table—

Order. No hon. Member would act dishonestly.

Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see the report issued this week by the Trading Standards Institute on premium rate fraud? Is he aware that the TSI calculated that phone-line fraudsters could be raking in as much as £1 billion a year? I have had complaints about that from people in my constituency. In Ashbourne there has been a bill for more than £500; in the Matlock area there has been a bill for more than £200; and in the Belper area there has been a bill for £200. This is a big fraud. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to tell us what action she will take to stamp out this fraud?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take close note of what he said and respond to it. If there is an opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in future, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will take it.

May I suggest that my right hon. Friend's professed liking for Select Committees is in no small part due to the warm welcome he received earlier this year from the Procedure Committee and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? I regard with dismay my right hon. Friend's comments that the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, whose arrival in the House so many Labour Members have looked forward to, may be derailed because of actions in the other place by unelected others.

I share the dismay. It is astonishing that the Conservatives, in the main, in the House of Lords have been unable to agree to a sensible proposition to timetable debate, which would allow Second Reading to take place and therefore early progress to be made so that the Bill could be carried over into the next Session and would reach the statute book earlier than would otherwise be the case. I hope that they will reconsider their decision, because the Bill provides vital extra protection for people with disabilities and we as a Government are determined to deliver it.

The Leader of the House has already acknowledged in earlier exchanges the difficulties for Silverstone from the grim news about the British grand prix. He sought to steer an elegant course between the parties involved and any decision that is taken, yet he claimed credit for the actions of the Minister for Sport and Tourism and other Government Departments with an interest in the matter. My concern is to support the outcome constructively. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for an early debate in Government time so that the whole matter can be thoroughly discussed?

It may come to that, but let us see what happens in the meantime. The hon. Gentleman may have other opportunities to raise the matter. I know he has always been a big supporter of the British grand prix in every respect, not just because it is in his constituency. The Government have provided quite a lot of funding for Silverstone, both for the new road that has transformed the previously chaotic traffic arrangements around there, and to support the development of high performance engineering in the area around Silverstone. We are as committed as he is to the British grand prix. Unfortunately we do not control those who make the decision on it.

May I say how much I agree with the remarks of the Leader of the House about the need for the House to take European scrutiny and European issues far more seriously than it currently does? Will he indicate a timetable for the implementation of his suggestions for reform?

The Modernisation Committee is considering how we might improve the scrutiny and mainstreaming of European issues in the House. We are due to issue a report when that has been completed. At the risk of repetition, I come back to what I said earlier: the main opportunity that the House will now have, which we have never had before, is to vet any new proposal from the European Commission for legislation, because we will have that right under the new European constitutional treaty. That is why I hope that Conservative Members and others will support the Government in promoting the European constitutional treaty, which for the first time gives the House democratic rights over what the European Commission initiates.

Colleagues and I have repeatedly raised the issue of the proliferation of unauthorised Travellers' sites in our constituencies. Given the written answer of yesterday's date stating that there are 3,571 caravans on unauthorised encampments or unauthorised developments of land without planning permission, and the court case that occurred in recent weeks, is it not time that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister produced proposals which, to be fair, it has promised, to increase the powers of local planning authorities? Many people worry about the integrity of the planning process and relationships between our communities and travellers.

I am sure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's question. I hope that he will support the Government in future on all these issues in the legislation that we introduce on antisocial behaviour and similar matters.

May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in relation to police authority funding? Given that the Government have loaded additional costs on to police forces around the country yet are speaking about a simple inflation-linked increase in the grant next year, there will be massive shortfalls. In the case of my own constabulary, Greater Manchester police, it would lead to a shortfall of some £40 million. That would mean massive front-line cuts in policing. It is essential that the Government reconsider. May we please have an urgent debate on the matter?

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, there has been a long-standing problem relating to the finances of the pension fund for the police. That has complicated the funding decisions that have to be made. He is right, as a Member of Parliament, to raise the matter in respect of his local area, and I understand that. But he ought to draw the attention of the House and his constituents to the fact that within two years of a Conservative Government taking power, a massive multi-billion pound cut is planned in Home Office budgets, including police funding. His voters ought to know that if the Conservatives won, the problems would be much worse and the council tax would go sky-high to cope with them.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about the deployment of UK forces in Iraq.

On Monday I explained to the House that the UK military had received, and was evaluating, a request from the US military command in Iraq for assistance that would involve UK land forces operating outside the Multi-National Division (South-East) area, in support of a combined Iraqi/US force.

A reconnaissance team from MND(SE) deployed to the area in question earlier this week and has now reported back to the chiefs of staff. The team provided information on a number of issues including logistics, the length of the potential operation, the likely tasks, activity levels in the area, the force levels required, and the command and control arrangements. After careful evaluation, the chiefs of staff have advised me that UK forces are able to undertake the proposed operation, that there is a compelling military operational justification for doing so and that it entails a militarily acceptable level of risk for UK forces. Based on this military advice, the Government have decided that we should accept the US request for assistance.

I emphasise again that this was a military request, and has been considered and accepted on operational grounds after a thorough military evaluation by the chiefs of staff. As I said on Monday, and as the Prime Minister said yesterday to the House, this deployment is a vital part of the process of creating the right conditions for the Iraqi elections to take place in January.

We share with the Iraqi Interim Government and with our coalition partners a common goal of creating a secure and stable Iraq, where men, women and children in towns such as Falluja can feel safe from foreign terrorists, from the kidnappers who murdered Ken Bigley and from other criminals. Crucially, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi and the Interim Iraqi Government want to establish sufficient security for elections to be able to take place in January. Recent successful operations by Iraqi security forces and coalition forces in Tal Afar, Samarra and on the outskirts of Falluja have been undertaken to restore areas under the control of militants and terrorists to the authority of the Iraqi Interim Government. As a direct result, the political process there is now moving ahead.

We cannot consider the current UK area of responsibility in isolation. What goes on in the rest of Iraq affects southern Iraq and affects UK troops wherever they are based. We must therefore consider our contribution in the context of the overall security situation right across Iraq. This means that a UK armoured battle group consisting of the 1st Battalion the Black Watch and supporting units will deploy to an area within Multi-National Force (West) to relieve a US unit for other tasks. They will be deploying with the necessary combat support services such as signallers, engineers and medics, resulting in a total deployment of around 850 personnel. This deployment will be for a very limited and specified period of time, lasting weeks rather than months.

I cannot give the House further details about the location, duration or specifics of the mission. I know that hon. Members on all sides will understand that to do so would risk the operational security of the mission and potentially the safety of our forces. Speculation from many quarters so far has not been helpful. I emphasise that there are no plans to send a further 1,300 troops to Iraq, as suggested this morning.

Concerns have been expressed about UK forces coming under US command and about their rules of engagement. The arrangements for this deployment are that the force will remain under the operational command of General Rollo, the UK General Officer Commanding Multi-National Division (South-East).

On a day-to-day basis, the Black Watch will, of course, have to co-ordinate its activity with the US chain of command in the locality, but any changes in the mission or the tasking would have to be referred back to General Rollo. As with all UK operations, our forces will operate at all times under UK rules of engagement, which will provide proper protection for our forces, as they have done throughout our operations in MND(SE).

It is not unusual for UK and US forces to work alongside each other—they have successfully done so not only in Iraq, with US forces often providing logistical support for our own forces and therefore reducing the number of troops and assets that we need in theatre, but in operations all over the world. Indeed, in Bosnia, about 22,000 US troops operated under UK command. As I said in my statement on Monday, UK forces in Iraq work alongside forces from Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Japan and other countries on a daily basis. That is an effective and practical way to ensure coherence both in our own area and with those areas that surround it.

There has also been speculation as to why there is a need for this UK force to backfill for a US unit, when there are around 130,000 US troops in Iraq. The armoured battle group brings important qualities of extensive training, experience, and hard-edged combat capability. It is not the case, as is often implied, that there are 130,000 US troops that could take on that task. In fact, less than one third of US forces in Iraq have the requisite combat capability, and of those even fewer have the armoured capability that is needed.

Specialised armoured forces are already highly committed across Iraq, which is about four fifths the size of France. The chiefs of staff have further concluded therefore that the provision of a UK battle group to that new mission would be a significant contribution to and would materially increase the effect of the continuing operations to maintain pressure on the terrorists before the January elections.

On Monday, hon. Members raised the question of whether that deployment will leave sufficient forces to deal with contingencies in our own area of responsibility in the south. The roulement of British forces currently under way includes an armoured infantry battle group of the 1st Battalion Scots Guards with their own Warrior armoured vehicles, which will fulfil the divisional reserve role currently undertaken by the Black Watch. That will result in General Rollo temporarily having an extra armoured battle group under his command, which will provide a robust force capable of dealing with any contingencies. It is also worth remembering that the other UK forces in MND(SE) will continue to carry out their tasks in the professional and effective manner that has become so apparent to the people of Basra and the surrounding area—they restore power, water and basic facilities and support the Iraqi authorities in ensuring a robust level of security.

The deployment is limited in scope, time and space, and it does not represent a permanent significant additional commitment of forces. The overall trend in the numbers deployed in Iraq remains down, from the peak of 46,000 during the war-fighting phase to around 8,500 today. That overall downward trend is expected to continue as we continue to train Iraqi security forces to take over from UK forces, as has happened, for example, in Amarah in Maysan province.

The Government remain totally committed to the Iraqi Interim Government and the need to hold free elections in January. We also remain committed to protecting innocent Iraqis, dealing with terrorists, kidnappers and criminals, training and equipping Iraqi forces so that they can take our place providing security, and seeing a democratic Government in Iraq who will take their rightful place in the international community and who will deliver prosperity and a secure future for the Iraqi people. That should unite both sides of the House, and it is right that the United Kingdom should contribute to those objectives. The deployment of the Black Watch will emphasise to the Iraqi people that the UK will continue to contribute to the coalition and see the task through.

The House will be relieved that the Secretary of State has finally moved to end the unnecessary and unacceptable confusion of the past few days and announced the Government's decision on this important matter. As I made plain in my response to his statement on Monday, Conservative Members fully support the coalition as it seeks to bring democracy, stability and freedom to Iraq and preserve Iraq's territorial integrity. We agree that we should do what we can to contribute to that strategic objective.

In the light of what the Secretary of State has told the House today, and having heard that the deployment has the support of the chiefs of staff following reconnaissance reports that the proposed mission is both feasible and fully within the capabilities of the Black Watch battle group, Conservative Members support the deployment on the basis that it is a necessary operational military contribution to the coalition's efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq ahead of the January elections.

I will, if I may Mr. Speaker, press the Secretary of State, in the light of this decision, on a number of the points that I made to him on Monday. First, will he clarify his rather complicated assurances on the rules of engagement? Will he again confirm that the rules of engagement are indeed robust enough to cope with the change of area, mission and task?

Secondly, will he assure the House that troops about to face the enemy will not have their essential confidence undermined by the possibility of a commanding officer's legal judgments being subsequently overruled, as has recently been the case?

Thirdly, bearing it in mind that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are about to enter a period of increased activity in Iraq, will the Secretary of State confirm that there is likely to be a surge requirement for extra troops to Iraq ahead of the Iraqi elections in January? If so, where will those troops come from?

Fourthly, does the Secretary of State anticipate deploying the over-the-horizon assets that he holds in Cyprus? Is he satisfied as to the arrangements both for command and control and for air cover? Fifthly, will he say whether troops currently serving in Iraq will have their tour extended? Finally, are there any additional plans for further redeployment of British troops outside MND(SE)?

No doubt the Secretary of State will wish at his earliest convenience to apologise to the families of the Black Watch battle group for the exceptionally shabby way in which he has treated them.

The House and the nation can be supremely confident that the Black Watch, the Royal Highland Regiment, which bears the distinction of Baghdad 1917 as one of its battle honours, will carry out its task with all the fortitude, discipline and courage that we would expect from one of the finest regiments in the British Army. To them and to all the supporting arms who go with them in the battle group, we wish God speed.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has finally and rather belatedly made the Conservative party's position on the deployment clear. It was not obvious from his comments on Monday, and no one could have detected from the Conservative leader's observations yesterday whether the Conservative leader actually supports the deployment, so we have made some progress.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman prepared his questions before he heard my statement. I have already repeated the point about rules of engagement, which he has come very close to suggesting should be published—he denied such requests when he was Minister for the Armed Forces—and I am delighted to repeat again that our armed forces will have robust rules of engagement. The rules of engagement have been sufficient to protect them in their operations in MND(SE), and that will continue to be the case as far as this deployment is concerned. Every hon. Member knows that British forces, wherever they serve in the world, are subject to the law of this country. That remains the case, it will always be the case and British forces want nothing else.

The hon. Gentleman's other questions largely concerned other matters not related to this particular deployment, and I shall certainly deal with them, perhaps in the debate that follows or on a future occasion. On apologies, he might like to reflect on the fact that his observations about the Black Watch were poorly received by the commanding officers of that distinguished regiment—very poorly received.

They have gone out of their way to keep their people and families thoroughly informed about this deployment. I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make that apology instead of making cheap political points at the expense of hard-working serving soldiers and their families.

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement and for an advance sight of it. Of course, all of us in this House wish the Black Watch well.

Liberal Democrat Members did not support the war in Iraq, but we accept that we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq. However, we also have a responsibility to our troops serving there in terms of their protection, welfare and morale. For that reason, we believe that British troops should remain in the British sector under British command, so we do not support this redeployment. I hope that the Government have the confidence to put this issue before the House.

Of course, there will be times when our forces will temporarily serve outside MND(SE), including the Royal Air Force, liaison units and special forces, but the protection of the men and women in MND(SE) must be the highest possible priority.

Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said that the security situation in Iraq could get worse in the short term due to Ramadan, any US attack on Falluja, and the run-up to the January elections. So is now a good time to move 850 battle-trained members of the Black Watch, with its Warrior armoured vehicles, some 350 miles away from supporting the remaining British troops in the south?

Will the 1st Battalion the Scots Guards be in MND(SE) before the Black Watch moves? If the US attacks Falluja, will it be able to call on the Black Watch for support? What is the future of the Black Watch when it returns home? Will it be disbanded, as has been suggested and as has been campaigned against by my hon. Friends?

Finally, if the only elections that these troops are being sent to support are the Iraqi elections in January, which troops will replace the Black Watch when it goes home before Christmas, as the Prime Minister promised yesterday?

The hon. Gentleman thanked me for making the statement available to him in advance. I am sorry that he did not study it a little more carefully, because several of the answers to his questions would have been apparent to him had he done so.

It is important that the Liberal Democrats participate in this debate so that the country can see precisely where they stand on a number of key issues—

Absolutely.

Is the leader of the Liberal Democrats seriously suggesting, as he appears to be, that every time British forces in a theatre of operation are redeployed there needs to be a debate and a vote on it? Is he seriously suggesting that, across the wide range of deployments that British forces make, that kind of political opportunism would serve them well? We know full well from the Liberal Democrats that their policy would mean that Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad today. Given the current situation in Iraq, are the Liberal Democrats seriously saying to the families of people like Ken Bigley that they would not take action against terrorists and take the necessary action to see democratic elections taking place in Iraq? Do they or do they not want free and democratic elections in Iraq? If not, they should say so, because their policies lead directly to that conclusion.

The most fundamental question that the Liberal Democrats have to face up to is whether they back our troops. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has failed to do that.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the deployment of British forces that he announced will be fully supported by the Iraqi Government, who wish to have robust action against the terrorists and those who murdered Ken Bigley and are currently taking other hostages in Iraq? Is it not about time that the Liberal Democrats ceased to be the Saddam Hussein preservation society?

With the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government, all the operations that I have described to the House and, indeed, this deployment and this operation, will have to be with the consent of that sovereign Government of Iraq. It is the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Government who want to see the terrorists dealt with and an end to the attacks on innocent Iraqis.

As one who agrees with the decision that has been taken and has every confidence in the ability of the Black Watch, may I press the Secretary of State on one point? If, when it returns at Christmas, there is a need for other troops to take its place, have contingency plans been made for that?

As I sought to explain to the House in the course of my statement, the fact that the Black Watch will be going north and will in turn be replaced in position by the Scots Guards means that once it has been able to return home before Christmas we will be back to the steady state of forces that we currently have in MND(SE), so there will not be a significant change in the total numbers operating in the south.

Many colleagues would delay action for a couple of weeks beyond the US election. I do not want President Bush re-elected, but with every day that passes terrorists in Falluja are killing Iraqi people and taking UK hostages, and there will be more and more Bigleys. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a military imperative to act we should do it now, not sacrifice UK and Iraqi lives just because we do not like George Bush?

I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, at any rate: it is important that we act on the request made to us not only by our US ally but, crucially, by the sovereign Government of Iraq, who want an end to the lawlessness, violence, terrorism, killing and kidnapping. This deployment will play a part in that process.

I understand the pressures that have been brought to bear on the Secretary of State with regard to making this statement, but I wonder whether it was the wise thing to do. He emphasised that the decision was taken purely on the basis of operational considerations. Such decisions and movements are bound to take place from time to time when we have allies working on a joint operation, as has happened elsewhere. Can the Secretary of State tell us what policy issues are relevant, because it is those, not operational matters, with which this House should be concerned?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who always approaches military questions in the light of very considerable personal knowledge and experience. As he knows, such deployments are made clearly to reflect a policy background, which I stated to the House—it is the importance of removing the terrorist threat to the people of Iraq and of allowing free democratic elections to take place on schedule in January, as has always been our policy.

As the Member for Dunfermline, which is the Black Watch's largest recruitment area, I had hoped, as had many of its families, that it would not be committed to an even more dangerous aspect of its current operations, especially as our US allies, despite having 121,000 more in their armed forces than we do, seem incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation. What commitment can the Secretary of State give to assure us that all the vital support and equipment will be provided and that those soldiers will return to their homes for Christmas?

I have set out the reason for this deployment. I am absolutely confident that the Black Watch and all those, including our US allies, who will work so hard to ensure that the deployment is able to take place will do so successfully and satisfactorily.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend expresses those views about the United States, which will be engaged in the deployment. I have explained to the House in some detail why this particular capability is necessary in order to allow wider operations against terrorists and kidnappers to take place.

Is it not the case that the US forces place considerably greater reliance on the use of offensive air power against urban terrorist targets than we do, and that time and again, most regrettably, so-called precision US air strikes have resulted in significant Iraqi civilian casualties, including women and children? Assuming that that pattern continues, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the risk that not only the Black Watch, but British forces generally, may, quite unjustifiably, be associated in the Iraqi public mind with having caused significant civilian casualties?

I do not accept the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, not least because the capability of modern precision-guided weapons is now such that they can be precisely targeted in a way that he does not give credit for. The question also concerns whether it is right to try to deal with terrorists. I assure him that Iraqi public opinion wants the threats to security in Iraq and to the Iraqi people dealt with just as badly as the United States or the United Kingdom does. If he reflects on what he said, I am sure that he will realise that the sorts of terrorists operating in places such as Falluja are killing far more Iraqis than they are killing coalition forces. That is why the Interim Government are so determined to see them dealt with.

In view of the tawdry and rather irresponsible comments to the effect that Black Watch families have not been properly briefed up to now, will the Secretary of State confirm that they have been properly briefed and that that will continue?

The commanding officers have been at great pains to provide information to the families of those men currently deployed in Iraq. That is why I took such exception to the ignorant comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).

Of course we must see the job through in Iraq, but is it not unfair to ask regiments such as the Black Watch, or my local regiment, the Cheshires, to serve with such bravery and distinction in Iraq, and then face them with abolition on their return?