With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the elections that were held in Iraq yesterday.

First, however, let me deal with the tragic crash of an RAF C-130 Hercules aircraft. As the House will be aware, the aircraft came down approximately 30 km to the north-west of Baghdad, at half-past four in the afternoon, Iraq time, yesterday. The aircraft was flying from Baghdad international airport to Balad airbase. The site of the crash has been secured, and we are investigating its cause. The House will understand that it would be wrong at this stage to speculate about possible causes. Ten United Kingdom service personnel were onboard the aircraft and, sadly, are presumed killed— nine were from the Royal Air Force and one from the Army. Their next of kin are being informed. The Ministry of Defence will release the names of those who were onboard only once this process is complete and the families have been given time to inform other loved ones and friends. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of these brave men and to their comrades.

Yesterday's elections in Iraq demonstrated the vital importance of what those service personnel and thousands of other brave British servicemen and women have been helping to achieve in Iraq. Only two years ago, Iraq was still under the sway of one of the most ruthless dictators in the world. Dissent was punishable by torture and summary execution, with an estimated 300,000 people buried in mass graves during the period of Saddam's dictatorship. The last time that the Iraqi people voted was in the staged elections of Saddam's tyranny, with just one candidate—a man who had been flouting the will of the United Nations for 12 long years. Yesterday, in contrast, the elections took place in the implementation of the will of the United Nations, for it was the Security Council, in resolution 1546, that laid down the timetable and process for the elections and the steps that follow. Yesterday, the Iraqi people had a choice of not one candidate but 8,000 candidates for the new National Assembly, from 111 different political parties and entities, with 11,000 candidates in regional and Kurdish elections. I am delighted to say that one third of the candidates in the national elections were women.

Although turnout figures will not be available for some days, it is already clear from initial estimates that a substantial proportion of the Iraqi population took part in the elections. Turnout appears to have been especially high in the north and south of the country, among both men and women. Turnout in Sunni majority areas was lower, mainly because of the high penetration of insurgents threatening to kill voters. However, in other areas where Sunni Arabs were able to vote freely, they appear to have done so in good numbers. Simon Collis, British consul-general in Basra, told me this afternoon that some 50 per cent. of Sunnis in that province may have voted. He described the extraordinary atmosphere in Basra, as families went out to vote, taking along their children dressed in their smartest festive clothing. Polling was also brisk in the mixed Sunni-Shi'a suburbs of Baghdad. In Mosul, extra polling stations had to be opened when turnout exceeded expectations.

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it?

On behalf of Conservative Members, I join the Foreign Secretary in his expressions of sorrow at the crash of the RAF C-130 Hercules north of Baghdad yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with the families of those who have died in this incident. In Iraq, we have asked a lot of the dedication and professionalism of our armed forces, who have responded magnificently, and I pay tribute to those who have given their lives.

Obviously, we must await the outcome of inquiries into the cause of the crash. Those planes, as I personally know, have a good safety record and are flown with the greatest professionalism. If there is any evidence that that crash was caused by hostile action, the Government will have many further questions to address. Can we be assured that the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary will keep the House informed?

In the meantime, there are certain questions which I hope the Foreign Secretary will answer now. Why was this plane flying to Balad? Is that a routine run for RAF C-130s, as is the regular flight from Basra to Baghdad? Has the whole site of the crash now been fully secured? We are told that an Australian airman was killed in the crash. Were any Americans involved?

On yesterday's elections, may I join the Foreign Secretary in his warm words of praise for the way in which they were conducted, and for the courageous way in which the Iraqi people responded? The turnout and level of participation, even in the face of the gravest terrorist threats and violent intimidation, were not only encouraging but proved the doom merchants wrong. At the suggested 60 per cent. overall, the turnout would be a little higher than in our last general election, which should give us food for thought.

On terrorist intimidation, I see that interim Prime Minister Allawi announced today that seven foreign nationals had been held in relation to election day attacks. Are there any indications as to which countries those seven came from?

While the vote was a major blow for freedom and democracy and against tyranny and terrorist intimidation, is not the key to its longer-term success the breadth of the turnout in all parts of Iraq and across the various ethnic and sectarian divides? I see from the reported remarks of the UN's Carlos Valenzuela that higher numbers of Sunnis than expected turned out to vote, and that in the former rebel stronghold of Falluja queues were seen forming outside polling stations. Is not that a welcome vindication of the anti-insurgency action taken by multinational forces in rebel areas over recent months? And was it not encouraging that, in most areas, Iraqi forces took the lead in providing the necessary security to allow the poll to proceed? I, too, pay tribute to them for that.

Now we must look to the future. The new Transitional National Assembly and Government will now draw up, as we have heard, a constitution to put to the people in a referendum later this year. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that all elements of Iraqi society must be involved in the drawing up of that constitution if they are to feel a sense of ownership in it? What steps will be taken to ensure that, even where low turnout or boycott have caused under-representation of certain crucial elements in the new Assembly, those elements can still become part of the constitution-formulating process? Looking further to the future, can the Foreign Secretary comment on the words of Iraqi interim Interior Minister Falah al-Nakib yesterday:

"I think we will not need the foreign forces in this country within 18 months"?

How does such a time estimate fit with the current rate at which effective Iraqi security forces are being trained and commissioned?

Can the Foreign Secretary comment on the extraordinary reports today that since the war almost $9 billion of Iraqi oil revenue has gone missing from a fund specifically set up for Iraq reconstruction, and that mismanagement by the coalition provisional authority was to blame? I am sure that he will agree that that is a most serious allegation. What steps are he and his Department taking to follow this up?

Yesterday's elections are a positive step towards a stable and democratic Iraq, which has been the long-standing goal of all of us who supported the war. Of course one poll does not deliver democracy; indeed, sometimes in history it has delivered the opposite. Yesterday's vote, however, was good for Iraq, the middle east and freedom. For that we must all be thankful. Our hope must now be that it will set the path for wider peace and harmony throughout that troubled region.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. He asks me essentially to speculate about the causes of the crash yesterday. With respect, I would rather not do so. A board of inquiry has been established, and it is appropriate that it should deal with the causes.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point about turnout. We do not know what the turnout will be, but if it is at or above 60 per cent., then on the basis on which Members are in this House it must be a highly legitimate election.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the number of foreign nationals who may have been held by Iraqi security forces. I am afraid that I have no further information about them.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point about how inclusive the process of forming the Transitional Government will be. It will be very inclusive and, as I pointed out, Ayatollah Sistani, who represents a substantial part of the Shi'a majority, has made that clear. There are protections for both the Sunni and the Kurdish minorities, as I have spelled out, but it is also worth bearing it in mind that even if, as a result of a lower Sunni turnout, the Sunnis have fewer members in the Transitional National Assembly than their population would suggest, it would be open to the government's appointing panel to appoint Sunnis to the government, because it is not a requirement that members of the Iraqi Government be members of the TNA.

The mandate for the multinational force—it of course includes the British force—was established in resolution 1546, which states that the mandate will be reviewed in June this year and will terminate, unless extended by a further Security Council resolution, this December. Meanwhile, as the Iraqi Interior Minister implied, the question of whether foreign forces should be on Iraqi soil is entirely a matter for the Iraqis themselves. I heard Dr. Shaikhly, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Kingdom, say yesterday on the BBC that this election could not have taken place but for the presence of the multinational force of the United States, the United Kingdom and other contributor forces to the coalition. We proved yesterday that it is there not as an army of occupation, but as a force for democracy by, for and of the Iraqis. We will only stay there as long as we are needed, but how long that is depends almost entirely on how quickly the Iraqis' own forces can be built up. However, yesterday's experience was a good one in terms of their ability to deal with such matters.

I have no further information concerning reports of missing oil money, but we are actively looking into the situation.

May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy with which the Foreign Secretary began his statement, and express our regret at the loss of life? I have no detailed questions to ask the Foreign Secretary about the circumstances of the crash; I am content to wait until the Government feel able to release such details as are appropriate.

It would be churlish not to salute the courage of the ordinary citizens of Iraq who have voted in such numbers; nor would it be right to complain if the British Government felt a moment of satisfaction—even relief—at the fact that the election has taken place with such success. The Foreign Secretary will doubtless agree, however, that this is no time for triumphalism, and we would do well to accept Kofi Annan's sober judgment that this is merely the beginning. May I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary what steps can be taken to strengthen and improve the quality of the Iraqi security forces? What practical steps can be taken to ensure that the political process now set in motion will be as inclusive and representative of all opinions as he, the shadow Foreign Secretary and I consider desirable? What steps can be taken to improve delivery of public services such as water, sanitation and electricity, and to deal with unemployment?

The Foreign Secretary knows that my colleagues and I were opposed to military action, but we have accepted the moral obligation that that action imposed on us all. However, that commitment cannot be open-ended. The United Nations' mandate is due to expire at the end of 2005. Should not United Kingdom forces be withdrawn by then?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expression of sympathy and condolences concerning the victims of yesterday's crash of a C-130 Hercules.

I understand the position in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds himself, but I should point out that there is no question of "triumphalism". No one feels triumphal about what has happened in Iraq, but there is a great sense of relief. I should also point out as gently as possible that we all have to bear responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. Some of us in all parts of the House—a majority—decided on a course of action on 18 March 2003 that has caused much heart-searching. It meant that each of us individually, as well as collectively, has come under a huge amount of criticism, and in some cases much worse. We all made that decision because we felt that it was the right decision and that the outcome, however difficult, would be to produce a better Iraq than that which had gone before. So it has turned out. We now have the beginnings of a democratic Iraq. No one can gainsay what happened yesterday, which we have seen with our own eyes and through the eyes of observers.

I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose party has made so much of the position that it took in respect of Iraq, that the consequence of the decision that his party took was that there would be no democratic elections in Iraq. Saddam would still be in power, and the only elections that would have taken place in Iraq would have been a continuation of those ruthless elections in which the only issue was whether the leading candidate—the only candidate—got 99 or 100 per cent. of the vote. We bear responsibility for our actions, including the loss of life of British soldiers that has taken place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's party bears responsibility for the strategy that he and his colleagues resolutely pursued, which, whatever their good reasons, had the consequence, whether intended or inadvertent, of keeping Saddam in power and crushing the very idea of democracy in Iraq. The British people can make their own judgment about that.

Let me answer the other two questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. He asked what we are doing about water, sanitation and so on. We are doing everything we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is present. He and his Department have been indefatigable in pursuing the aid and reconstruction programme, along with other international partners. The one thing that has set back the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq has been the terrorism. That is why we must have our multinational forces—British forces, United States forces and forces from other countries—as long as the Iraqi forces cannot cope themselves.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says we should make a commitment to withdraw our forces by the end of the year. If we were to decide that now, in advance of knowing what the security situation will be, we would be going back to the situation that his party wanted, where the forces of democracy are weakened and the forces of tyranny are strengthened. It would be utterly irresponsible for the House or the Government to make a premature decision about the withdrawal of British and other forces.

It is for the Iraqis themselves to make that judgment. If the Iraqi Government were to say today that our mandate had ended, we would leave tomorrow, but so far they have said, and we all understand this, that they do not like the idea of foreign forces on their soil—nobody does—but they understand fully that without foreign forces on their soil for a period, they cannot rebuild their country and create the freedom, security and democracy that they so desperately need.

For many of us, the enthusiasm that we saw yesterday in many parts of Iraq reminded us of the post-liberation election in South Africa in 1994. Is it not ironic, however, that a blocking mechanism on the constitution—two thirds of the electorate in three provinces—which was designed to protect the Kurds, may, unless we are careful, be used by Sunni elements if they feel excluded from the process? So is there not now a very strong incentive to ensure that the Sunni elements who, often for good patriotic reasons, stayed outside the elections are brought within the big tent and feel part of the process?

Even though I agree that it would be wholly premature to give a date now for withdrawal, if we accept that the new Government are in the driving seat, should we not reconsider with them a staged withdrawal, province by province, to show that they are indeed in charge?

It showed great foresight when the drafters of the transitional administrative law put in the mechanism allowing a two-thirds vote in three of the provinces to block the constitution. It was originally put in as a protection for the Kurds, but is there now as a protection for the Sunni as well. All of us understand the apprehension of perfectly decent Sunni about whether they will be excluded from the political process, but it is the determination not only of us, but especially of the Iraqis, that that should not be the case, and there are mechanisms ensuring that it is not. On a timetable, the point is premature. Resolution 1546 lays down a clear timetable for review and termination of the mandate at the end of this year, unless it is renewed. It will be renewed only if the Iraqis themselves plainly ask for it, but they may well do so, because their own forces may not be fully ready.

The profound sympathy of the Foreign Secretary and the whole House will be much welcomed by my constituents at RAF Lyneham, who have so tragically lost nine of their number, although the healing of their hearts and of the surrounding communities will take a very long time indeed. I hope that that process will be helped by the knowledge that the sheer professionalism, determination and guts of the men and women of RAF Lyneham have made such a significant contribution to the successful elections yesterday. I hope that, through their grief, they will realise that their men have made some contribution to restoring democracy and peace in Iraq.

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman passed on directly to the families concerned and all those on the base our profound condolences and those of the whole House for what has happened. He speaks of their sheer professionalism. I have had the privilege of flying in a C-130 Hercules, as a number of hon. Members have, and of seeing their astonishing professionalism, including, for example, in tactical flying at between 100 and 150 ft, lower than most helicopters, where they will normally fly at speed for kilometre after kilometre in that dangerous territory of Iraq. Without their bravery and professionalism, we would not have been able to do the job that we have done, culminating at this stage in the elections that went so well yesterday. It is of little comfort, but maybe some solace for the families concerned, that those who died did so for a very great cause.

A tragic shadow is cast by the death of our servicemen, but my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to enthuse about the response of Iraqis to democracy, which certainly puts paid to what a number of the doubting Thomases in this country have been peddling. In terms of the next stage under resolution 1546, does he think that there is any mileage in making available the UK experience with devolution as one way of accommodating both the Kurds and the Sunnis?

The Iraqis have available to them a wide variety of experience of setting up federal or quasi-federal constitutions. Our experience is quite important, as we have produced an asymmetrical arrangement, and yet it is one that is working well. Also available are the experiences in Switzerland and Belgium, which are regarded as classics of their kind in terms of maintaining a federal structure and a unified country with a high level of devolution. We will certainly ensure that that experience is made available.

Does the Foreign Secretary have any new information that he can give the House about the trial of Saddam Hussein, which will presumably be an appropriate way in which to build on the hopes for freedom engendered yesterday? More disturbingly, does he accept and will he convey to the Ministry of Defence that great distress was caused yesterday to relatives of servicemen flying Hercules aircraft in Iraq, including some living in my constituency, when news was given out of a specific type of aircraft coming down, but before the next of kin were informed? Would it not be wise to do everything possible, while recognising the immense operational difficulties involved, to minimise the time interval between news of a specific aircraft coming down and the informing of next of kin, so that those whose relatives are safe can at least sleep more easily?

I have no further information as I stand here about the trial of Saddam Hussein, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library. I shall certainly raise the points that he has made with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Having spoken to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, I can say that my colleagues are very well aware of the necessity wherever possible to inform next of kin before any publicity is given. I understand—this is only my understanding—that the reports about the crash were made by news outlets initially and not by the Ministry of Defence. We live in a kind of global goldfish bowl, which has some advantages, but many disadvantages in circumstances such as these.

May I join my right hon. Friend in saluting the courage of those millions of Iraqis who went to the polls despite the grim security situation in that country and may I associate myself with his congratulations to our ambassador, Edward Chaplin, and his staff for the difficult and delicate task that they have had to perform on behalf of our country?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the forces of democracy have been released in Iraq, there is an obligation on us to listen to the demands of the newly elected representatives? Will he confirm that the great majority of the parties standing in yesterday's elections stood on a mandate for negotiation to end the occupation? Is my right hon. Friend sensitive to the fact that if we want to achieve a constructive and positive partnership with the new Assembly, we must convince it and the Iraqi public that we have a clear perspective for withdrawal within a realistic time line?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his salute to the Iraqis' courage and for his congratulations to the ambassador in Baghdad, Edward Chaplin, and his colleagues. My right hon. Friend knows those people, and their skill and professionalism, very well.

Of course, we have an obligation not only to listen to the elected representatives of the new Transitional Government, but to do what they say in respect of the future of the multinational force. Frankly, an issue about ending the occupation does not arise. In terms of its legal and practical effect, the occupation ended with the passage of resolution 1546. Since then, the multinational force has been there at the invitation, and only at the invitation, of the Interim Iraqi Government, who are now to be the Transitional Government. Of course, one item on that Government's agenda will be when they want us to go, but we have had no indication that any serious and responsible Iraqi politicians want us to go before our job is done. The moment they do so—it is their judgment, not ours—we will go.

In thanking the Foreign Secretary for what he just said and for the tone and content of his statement, will he take an early opportunity to talk to his new counterpart, when he or she is appointed, to make it plain that the British Government will make no unilateral commitment of any sort other than to stand by the democratically elected Government of Iraq and the principles on which they were elected?

Indeed we shall.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as a huge step forward for Iraq. While our thoughts are rightly with the British victims of the Hercules crash, he will be aware that in recent months a number of young Iraqi army recruits and policemen have been killed by terrorists and insurgents, even during the election period. Will the Government take the opportunity to pay tribute to those people and, alongside the new Iraqi Government, to look at ways of helping their bereaved families?

We do pay tribute to their great bravery. Notwithstanding the level of casualties that the Iraqi army and other security forces have suffered, I am pleased to say that recruitment levels are high and morale is improving. It is clear that the success of the Iraqi forces yesterday will help to defeat terrorism in the months ahead and to raise the morale of those forces.

The manner in which yesterday's elections appear to have been conducted is the best news to have come out of Iraq for a very long time, but it remains to be seen whether it improves the security situation. I rather doubt that that will be so in the short term, but, as more and more Iraqis show their support for the Government that they have elected, perhaps support for the terrorists will decline.

The Foreign Secretary said that the presence of allied forces is an essential part of that security operation. However, although they are part of the solution, they are also part of the problem in that they are often a target and make it difficult for Iraqi security forces to operate because they are often seen, wrongly, as being the proxy for American and British forces. At some point, the Iraqis must take over responsibility for their own security. I suggest that that will be easier in the absence of allied forces, who are perhaps seen as pulling the strings, and that he should consider not keeping our forces there for long after the elections at the end of this year on the basis of the new constitution.

I anticipate that the security situation will remain difficult for some time but it is also clear that the fact that elections took place and the Iraqi people's overwhelming endorsement of the democratic process will weaken support for the terrorists and greatly help stability and security in the medium and long term.

As I said earlier, the timetable for the presence of a multinational force including the United Kingdom is clearly set out in resolution 1546 and that is the basis of our remaining there.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that many who actively campaigned against Saddam Hussein years before he invaded Kuwait and also opposed the invasion of Iraq because they believed that the prospectus was false can none the less acknowledge success with the generosity of spirit that it deserves? Does he also accept that many questions remain unanswered and many concerns have not yet been tackled, not least a genuine audit of the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed, including in Falluja, during the war and the occupation?

I understand the basis of my hon. and learned Friend's initial comments. When I made the point about the consequences of people's actions, I did not say that people wished Saddam to remain in Iraq. It simply happens to be an obvious fact that a consequence—intended or unintended—of failing to vote for military action on 18 March is that Saddam would still have been there and the elections would not have happened.

I gave a full written ministerial statement about casualty figures in the autumn. I am happy to send my hon. and learned Friend a copy. The most reliable figures that are now issued come from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, although there are serious methodological difficulties about their categorisation—as some being caused by terrorists and others by the security forces. However, those figures appear to be the more reliable. The figures that The Lancet suggested, which range from 8,000 to 194,000—there was never an estimate of 100,000—need to be treated with the greatest scepticism.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that many of those who voted against the war in March voted for pursuing action through the United Nations in the earlier vote in February? A key matter is that the action was not taken legally within a United Nations framework. I accept the success of the elections, which were conducted through the United Nations thus demonstrating what it can achieve when supported internationally. Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what the United Nations can achieve in Iran as well as in Iraq?

To repeat the point, at the moment of decision, which was not February 2003 but 18 March 2003, the possibility of weakening Saddam through sanctions was not available. Everybody knows that. The choice before the House at the point of decision was between taking military action or walking away, with the consequence that sanctions would have degraded and Saddam would have re-emerged, strengthened and much emboldened. A majority in the House made one choice, others, including Plaid Cymru, made another. We take responsibility for our choice; the hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for his. It is an indelible fact that the consequences of the Liberal Democrat, Scottish nationalist and Welsh nationalist policy would have been that Saddam, an undemocratic tyrant, would still be there and there would have been no elections yesterday. Those parties must understand that.

Following that, do not those who say that they were always against Saddam's tyranny have a responsibility to tell us how that tyranny could have been destroyed without military action, and how genuine democratic elections could have taken place without the intervention of the occupying forces nearly two years ago? On the occupation, would it not be wise for all the Governments involved, including the British Government, regularly to review the position, for obvious reasons?

Of course I accept what my hon. Friend said at the outset. Those who willed the end had a responsibility to will the means, but they failed to do so. I have set out the timetable for the review of the mandate of the multinational force, and I believe that it would be most appropriate, certainly for the British Government, to stick to the timetable in resolution 1546.

I associate myself with the most moving tributes paid by the Foreign Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) regarding the tragic loss of the C-130 Hercules crew yesterday. I am most appreciative of the unsung heroes of the Royal Air Force's air transport force, who, in war, emergency and times of humanitarian catastrophe, fly in the most demanding circumstances at great personal risk. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to look forward to the time when Iraq is an established democracy born of the common sacrifice of British and Iraqi security personnel, and to make an investment in the training of such personnel at British training schools such as Sandhurst, so that, over the months and years ahead, we can more fully build a peaceful future for Iraq?

I associate myself entirely with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I understand from the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence that there will indeed be offers from the British Government of such support and training for the Iraqi national forces.

After months of reporting and comment that can only be described as selective, will my right hon. Friend pass on to those elements of the British media that appear to have had a change of heart in the past 72 hours our polite and respectful thanks for having acknowledged that it was right to go ahead with the election, that it was a success and that the seeds of hope in Iraq have not only been sown but are germinating?

Yes, of course I will, but I think that those people might be coming to that conclusion themselves.

The shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned that a number of foreign nationals had been detained in connection with offences against the election yesterday. What preliminary assessment has been received from our embassies in Damascus and Tehran of the reaction of the regimes in Syria and Iran to yesterday's election? How does the Foreign Office think that the election will affect relations between those two countries and Iraq?

I am afraid that I have not seen any preliminary assessments from our posts in Damascus and Tehran, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman when I have done so. The Iranian Government have been supportive of the process; it is a majority of the people we might call their compatriots, the Shi'a, who in one sense stand to gain the most from the elections. I am not clear about the position of the Damascus Government, but we have looked to both Governments to ensure that they do not interfere in the internal processes of Iraq.

Is it not an awkward and unpalatable reality that Kurds went into the polling booths yesterday and voted in their tens of thousands for parties that had promised not a federal Kurdistan, let alone a Kurdistan integrated into Iraq, but a separate Kurdish state? What is the attitude of our Government towards possible demands for the break-up of the Iraqi nation, given the difficulties that might result if the Iraqi Kurds were to be associated with the Kurds in Turkey and Iran?

My hon. Friend is very experienced in having to deal with secessionist nationalist parties that have completely unrealistic objectives such as the break- up of a sovereign state. The way to deal with such a situation is the one that, sensibly, we have in this country.

I can reassure my hon. Friend about the way in which we are dealing with those secessionist tendencies. Like every previous relevant Security Council resolution, resolution 1546 reaffirms the territorial integrity of Iraq—its existing borders. Democracy is about giving people freedom—freedom to argue for any cause that they wish to support—and that is what these people have done. International borders, however, cannot be rewritten by any political party of any one country, and they will not be in this case. The future of Iraq's constitution must lie within the existing international borders.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Obviously one wishes Iraq a peaceful future, and he rightly mentioned all the hundreds of thousands who died under the Ba'athist regime in the past. However, in answering the questions from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), he did not make clear exactly what was the estimated number of casualties in Iraq since the invasion. How many died in Falluja? Indeed, how many tens of thousands of people who are resident in Falluja have been denied the right to return to their own city, and are living in camps under some form of control? Surely, if we are to have openness and transparency, we need to know what estimates his Department and the Ministry of Defence hold of exactly how many people have perished since the invasion.

I published a very detailed written ministerial statement in, I think, October, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

My hon. Friend speaks as if the casualties that have arisen since the end of the major military action in April 2003 had somehow just happened. The only reason they happened was action by the terrorists. I look forward to the moment when my hon. Friend decides to condemn those terrorists. They are the people who have been doing the killing, and in the many provinces where there has been no terrorism there has been no killing. I think the moral of that is very clear.

The process of the election has indeed been very successful, and I think we can all welcome that, but whether the election has been successful per se is for history to judge, perhaps three or four years down the line.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that transparency must be at the heart of this? We want to avoid suggestions like those that were made after the Ukrainian elections, when it was said—perhaps erroneously—that western political participation funds had been used in a very partisan way. Should not the way in which the £5 million that the Government contributed to the Iraqi political participation fund was disbursed be published, so that everyone can see that it was given out fairly?

All the political parties in Iraq were operating under the Iraqi election law, and under the auspices of the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq.

I am afraid that we must make a judgment about the elections not in three or four years' time but, as we make judgments about our own elections, when the results appear and, in this case, when the observers' findings appear. What we know now is that the turnout was much higher than expected, and the evidence so far suggests that the incidence of electoral abuse was much lower than expected. The legitimacy of the elections is therefore likely to be much greater than expected, and that should be a cause for great celebration.

Will my right hon. Friend also pay tribute to the Iraqis in Britain who took part in the election activity over the weekend? Admittedly they did not have to demonstrate their physical courage like millions of Iraqis in Iraq, but they demonstrated their courage over decades, in many ways, when they were persecuted into exile by Saddam Hussein. Friends of mine were working on the election over the weekend, and I can testify to their passionate commitment to the democratic process.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the politics of the diaspora are important here, as elsewhere? Will he do what he can to build on the connections, and ensure that Britain's Iraqi community feel able to be involved, in whatever way possible, in building and deepening democracy in Iraq?

Yes to the first question, and yes, very much, to the second.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important task for us all now is to support the brave men and women who were elected to the Assembly yesterday? When I visited Basra in December with other members of the Defence Committee, one of the points made by the provincial governor and council was that to travel to the United Kingdom they had to journey to Baghdad for travel documents. Will my right hon. Friend look at providing further facilities to our excellent consulate in Basra, where Simon Collis is consul-general, so that individuals who want to come to this country do not have to travel to Baghdad to get the documents and can have them issued in Basra?

My hon. Friend raises a fair point and I will certainly look at it.

We will have to wait only a short while before the new Iraqi Government and the new Iraqi Parliament express their views about the withdrawal of troops. I hope that, however uncomfortable their decision is, considered from different points of view, it is accepted and acted upon because it will be a democratic decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many commentators are saying that this is the most democratic election in Iraq for 50 years? I was there 50 years ago and it was a feudal monarchical regime that merely had a democratic cover. These are the most democratic elections that have ever been held in the history of Iraq, imperfect as they are and despite all the difficulties that are associated with them. That is an extra reason why we should accept the decisions made by the new Iraqi Government and the new Iraqi Parliament.

My hon. Friend's intervention speaks for itself and shows the wisdom of his age and of British national service.

While the people were courageous, is not the reality that this was an election but not as we know it? No press were allowed, for example, in Falluja. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq was not independent. It was appointed not by Iraqis but by Paul Bremer. However, if the election does have legitimacy, as the Secretary of State says, and if the coalition around Ayatollah Ali Sistani wins, as is expected, will not most Iraqis have voted for a timetable for the foreign troops to leave? If so, should not those foreign countries, us and the United States, respect that decision in the name of freedom and democracy and set that timetable to leave?

I say gently to my hon. Friend that I am surprised at his discomfort about the excellent result of the election. I have already spelt out that there is widespread acknowledgment that it has gone much better than expected. It is simply untrue that the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq was appointed by Paul Bremer. It was endorsed by the United Nations and is working under the auspices of the United Nations special representative in respect of elections, Carlos Valenzuela, and the authority laid down in resolution 1546. The degree of scrutiny and external supervision of the elections, including 55,000 internal observers in Iraq and 120 foreign observers, indicates the quality of the elections in the special and very difficult circumstances of Iraq itself.

I beg to move,

That the Programme Order of 17th January 2005 in relation to the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] be amended as follows:

1. For paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(1) there shall be substituted the following—

'1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

2. Proceedings in the Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in three days.

3.—(1) The following shall apply to proceedings in the Committee.'

2. In the Table, at the end there shall be inserted—

3. For paragraphs 4 to 7 there shall be substituted—

'4.—(1) This paragraph applies to any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading (together referred to as "remaining proceedings").

(2) Remaining proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion—

(a) at the moment of interruption on the third day, or

(b) one and a half hours after the commencement of remaining proceedings,

whichever is the later.'

Following the comments made by some hon. Members during the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 17 January, the Government and Opposition have had further discussions through the usual channels and agreed to change the programming of the Bill. The motion will allow the entire Committee stage to take place on the Floor of the House, rather than some of the Bill's constituent parts being debated upstairs in Committee. The third day will now consist of the remaining proceedings in Committee, followed by proceedings on consideration and Third Reading. Many hon. Members expressed the view that that was a more appropriate arrangement. They prefer to see this constitutional matter taken through completely on the Floor of the House.

I am happy to compromise and make that change and I hope that we can move on to the debate proper.

I thank the Minister, as I did the Leader of the House, for agreeing that all stages of this Bill, which is of high importance, should take place on the Floor of the House. I am glad that it has been possible to reach agreement. It is an important convention of the House that goes back to 1945. Its genesis lies in the comments of Herbert Morrison to the Procedure Committee. In those circumstances, I am pleased that the convention will continue and that this important Bill will be debated on the Floor of the House.

We, too, welcome the Government's change of heart; it would be churlish not to do so. On both sides of the House, we recognise that the Bill is an important measure and I believe that there is a now a broad sweep of agreement on many of its provisions, but that is not to deny the fact that it is useful, on constitutional matters, to decide the issues on the Floor of the House in line with the convention. I am not a particularly conventional Member and I hope that we can make speedy progress on the Bill. The sooner it reaches the statute book, the better.

I briefly add my thanks as one of the Members who was particularly angry that the Bill was not to be taken on the Floor of the House. I would say to the Minister, in the same spirit of constructive conciliation, that it is a pretty tight timetable—today, tomorrow and on the third day. I hope that the Government will take note of that and, if necessary, introduce a supplementary motion.

Although I am glad that we are taking these proceedings on the Floor of the House, I have to say that the time allotted is absurd, given the depth of the issues involved. I believe that we will end up finding it increasingly difficult to get to the bottom of many of the issues of constitutional supremacy, which many people would like to be buried at the bottom of the sea.

I am delighted that the Government have granted a third day on the Floor of the House, but I regret the fact that, with a Bill of such importance, only three days have been provided. It is a large Bill and it carries with it huge implications for the future of our country. I hope that the Government will allow further days of debate on the Bill; if we do not do a proper job here, it will have to be considered at greater length in the House of Lords.

I hear what hon. Members are saying. We have moved a great deal on the main principle of the Committee stage, which has been widely welcomed. Only after we start the debate and find out how much progress is being made will we be in a position to judge whether the time allotted—always a matter of contention—was adequate for all hon. Members. The broad consensus is, I think, that it will be.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move amendment No. 364, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end add—

'(2) In this section "the rule of law" means in particular the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making the law and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts in interpreting and applying both that law and the common law.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—The rule of law (No. 2)—

'(1) Together with the sovereignty of Parliament, the rule of law shall continue to be a central principle of our constitution.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must use his best endeavours to ensure that the rule of law is respected.

(3) Nothing in this section shall make the duty of the Lord Chancellor under subsection (2) enforceable by law if it would not otherwise be so enforceable.'.

These are very deep issues. In fact, we can say with confidence that the Constitutional Reform Bill, which opens "Part 1, Clause 1, The Rule of Law", is not an insignificant matter, to say the least.

In dealing with clause 1, I have tried to achieve a definition of the rule of law. The Bill establishes duties and obligations, boldly asserting:

"This Act does not adversely affect . . . the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, or . . . the Lord Chancellor's existing constitutional role in relation to that principle".

Bearing in mind the fact that there must be some profound reason behind the Government wanting to achieve this, I believe that we must have a proper definition of what the rule of law actually means. I have suggested that it should be defined as meaning

"in particular the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making the law and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts in interpreting and applying both that law and the common law."

I have chosen the words carefully because of a House of Lords case in which Lord Bridge made an important judgment on what we can call the Grampian case. The wording that he gave and the wording that I have used vary slightly for a specific reason. He said that the rule of law was

"the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making law and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts in interpreting and applying the law".

Far be it from me to do more than offer suggestions about how the definition might otherwise be worded, but I am moving the amendment because at the heart of the question of the interpretation of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament is the fundamental fact that it is down to judges to give effect to the statutes that are passed in the House. By using the words, "that law", and referring them back to statutes passed by the Queen in Parliament, I am saying that doing that is the prime duty of judges.

There are rather esoteric cases about which it is said that judges might be given a jurisdiction in respect to the prerogative, but I disregard that for practical purposes. There is absolutely no doubt that the sovereignty of the Queen's courts extends to the common law. However, when we consider the interpretation of treaties, the key point is that only treaties that have been given statutory effect would fall under the parameters of my amendment.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in his attempt to define the rule of law, he is defining an element of it, rather than the complete territory covered by the expression? For example, the rule of law says that there should not be arbitrary use of power and that discretion should be conferred on a Government in a limited manner. Does he agree that he is attempting to define an important aspect of the rule of law?

That is why the amendment includes the words, "in particular". My hon. Friend refers to the arbitrary use of power, but that would of course be dealt with under the rubric of the common law because that is the arena in which the judiciary rightly have not only sovereignty, but the right to intervene. One can immediately think of a series of common law remedies. With respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend's interpretation of my amendment because it does not leave anything out—it is inclusive. I am saying, however, that the specific reference to the words, "that law", refers back to treaties to which statute has given effect. We all know that treaties do not have any effect in domestic law unless they are implemented by statute, and the Bill would be greatly improved if it made that clear.

Does my hon. Friend accept that directly acting European law, such as a European regulation that did not require the express consent of, or translation by, Parliament, would still be covered by his doctrine, because it would emanate originally from the European Communities Act 1972?

Absolutely. That is where we enter extremely deep territory. We shall come on to those questions a little later.

The fact is that it is open to the UK Parliament, where it is prepared to do so, as a matter of political will that I think is well overdue, to express itself by statute inconsistently with the European Communities Act 1972. In McCarthy's v. Smith, Lord Denning, and in the case of the metric martyrs, Lord Justice Laws, made it crystal clear that judges are under an obligation to give effect to the latest, subsequent, inconsistent, clear and unambiguous enactment of the House.

For reasons that I shall not go into at this point in the debate, serious doubts arise both in the context of the European constitution and also in relation to the question of judicial drift, where it is becoming increasingly clear that judges tend to regard a separate body of law as being somehow superior to that which is enacted in the House. Not only must that be stopped, it must be clearly dealt with in relation to Bills such as this. Indeed, I have tabled new clauses entitled "Supremacy of Parliament" in relation to both the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

It is well established not only in McCarthys v. Smith and in the metric martyrs case that subsequent legislation passed by the House must be given effect by the judges but also in the context of the Human Rights Act, which I suspect is a matter of considerable concern to the Government at present. By passing that Act, despite my dire warnings and those of others as to what would happen, the Government have in fact found themselves in a considerable judicial or jurisdictional mess. Indeed, in the cases of Simms and O'Brien, as I said when I occupied my previous position on the Opposition Front Bench, Lord Hoffmann unequivocally stated that it was open to the British Parliament to legislate inconsistently with, or even to repeal, the Human Rights Act 1998. He said that if the Government did so, they would have to bear the political cost, but the bottom line is that it is open to Parliament to legislate, as I said in my previous capacity, with respect to both the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, inconsistently with those enactments. It is the duty of judges to give effect to enactments providing that the enactments in question are clear and unambiguous.

That is what I mean by the words "that law" in my amendment. The rule of law means the rule of law exercised by judges in interpreting statute law and the common law. It is unnecessary for me to go into further detail on that question, as I have made my position abundantly clear.

How does my hon. Friend's proposal in amendment No. 364, and the wording that he has been explaining, alter the current position?

It is a clear statement of what is in my view the current position, with a proviso, although I would not want to appear pedantic. In the Grampian case, Lord Bridge stated the same proposition in slightly different wording. As I said when I moved the amendment, he has said that the rule of law means

"the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making law and the sovereignty of the Queen's courts in interpreting and applying the law".

I say with the greatest respect to such a noble and learned judge that it might have been preferable to have made it clear that the law that was being applied was both that made by Parliament in statute and the common law. For reasons that we have discussed, that would have been a little more precise. I do not want to criticise anyone for having made a slightly shortened version of what I was saying, but I think that the amendment is an improvement.

The question of the prerogative is separate. It is a matter of concern that treaties are made by prerogative and that there is an increasing tendency for those treaties, by judicial drift, to be given a greater status than they have in the context of the making of statute law. Treaties, including of course the European Community's treaties and other agreements such as the European convention on human rights, can have full effect in domestic law only if they are supported and enacted by statute.

A moment ago, my hon. Friend said that it would be open to the House to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, which would simply remove the ability of English courts to try European convention points in the courts of England and Wales. Decisions would have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to be justiciable. What would my hon. Friend say if this Parliament not only repealed the Human Rights Act, but passed an Act removing us from the European convention? How would courts under his definition of the rule of law deal with that? Presumably, our membership of the European convention on human rights is a treaty matter and dealt with by the prerogative, and therefore not within the power of this House or this Parliament to affect.

I do not agree with that at all. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is about to leap to his feet. We had an interesting and quite heated exchange with the Foreign Secretary on this question on 16 September two years ago, when I was on the Front Bench, when he asserted that international treaties have primacy over statute. Of course, that is complete nonsense. After much further questioning over the following year, both written and oral, he eventually conceded that that was wrong.

I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs case and to the judgment of Lord Diplock in—I think—1967, in which he unequivocally stated that it is open to any statute to break a treaty. I paraphrase, but I have the full text in front of me if my hon. and learned Friend is interested. The bottom line is that this is very important territory and that is why I am so concerned that there are those who would like to bury the question of the supremacy of Parliament and would rather that it was not given the coverage that I would prefer.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Second Reading of the European Union Bill will be taking place next week, so I am sure that we will have more of this in that debate. Can he think of an example in recent history of a Lord Chancellor acting contrary to the principles set out in clause 1(b) of this Bill?

I can say unequivocally that we have seen a serious invasion of the principles on which our constitution has been constructed, since 1688 at any rate—over and over again. That problem has worsened. It is extremely disturbing that that tendency has been perpetuated and entrenched by the Government, who have behaved wantonly with regard to the rights and principles on which our constitution is based. We could be here all day discussing that.

I am not a lawyer, but there is a simple but important constitutional principle at stake. It has been adumbrated by parliamentary Committees, and it deals with the relationship of treaties to law. Treaties that exercise a prerogative power are subordinate to the legislative process. The European Communities Act 1972 has the force of law in Britain only because Parliament has thus legislated. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights is subject to detailed legislation, so one can say that it meets the constitutional test. Other treaties, however, are pure exercises in prerogative power, and are therefore gainsaid by any direct reference in British law that is contrary to any of their provisions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation and the reaffirmation of the position. It is important to consider what a constitution is. In the United Kingdom, we understand it to be the whole system of government and collection of rules, which would effectively be translated into a justiciable statute, as the courts would have the power to interpret the provisions of the Bill. That raises the stakes considerably. Parliament is involved, but only to a limited extent, in the making of treaties, which are laid before the House for 21 days under the Ponsonby rule. In a 2002 All Souls lecture, Lord Steyn said that

"the supremacy of Parliament is the paramount principle".

I wish to reassert that principle, and it is a matter of grave concern that it has been subject to continuing erosion by judicial drift. The cases of McCarthy's v. Smith, the metric martyrs and so on demonstrate that the European Union has assumed a legal personality, so we are in extremely dubious and difficult territory. In the 1964 case of Costa v. ENEL, and also in the Simmenthal and Internationale Handelsgesellshaft cases, the European Court of Justice has asserted its supremacy and superiority of jurisdiction not only over the laws of member states but over their constitutions. We acknowledged its primacy in the European Communities Act 1972, but only in respect of laws that had been enacted and functions conferred at that time.

The whole thing has got completely out of control, and we now have a deepening to the point where the European constitution could effectively become the rule of law for the United Kingdom. Under article 1.6, it is clear that the European constitution—through the European Court of Justice, with the revocation of the treaties, and the reassertion of primacy over the new treaty, which is completely new—would have the effect of subordinating the will of the legislators in the House to decisions that were taken by the European Court of Justice.

In other words, the rule of law and the principles contained in the Bill would subordinate the people of this country in their choices in general elections to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in relation to all the matters in respect of which powers were conferred under the European Union Bill, which we are about to consider. Perhaps I can leave things at that for this purpose—although this is a very serious and deep question, we need to consider other matters today—but the bottom line is that this matter ought to be clarified, and the amendment is one way to achieve that.

In our constitution, there is no true separation of the powers of the three main institutions of the state: the legislature, the Executive and the courts. Although we have three such bodies, their powers are mixed and mingled. The Executive come from the legislature, but each is supported by an interdependent civil service, and in the case of Parliament, by the House authorities. The courts are independent in their judgments, but the senior judge is a member of the Cabinet as Lord Chancellor, and the courts are run by the civil service, which is part of the Executive.

In such a constitution, strength comes from being part of the mixture and having a place at the table where power is exercised—in Cabinet. The Executive are stronger by being part of the legislature and by having a majority there. Parliament can benefit from holding Ministers to account in a very direct way, using questions, statements, debates and Select Committees. The post of Leader of the House is a senior Cabinet appointment. The courts benefit from having a senior Cabinet Minister—the Lord Chancellor—at the seat of power, arguing for judicial independence and being the Prime Minister's conscience by advocating the importance of the rule of law.

It is a sad reflection that the Prime Minister did not appreciate any of those important considerations when he set about abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor on the back of a reshuffle. It was a back-of-the-envelope job, decided at short notice, without even consulting the Lord Chief Justice, and done in the cosy atmosphere of the chums around the sofa at No. 10—of course, by that time the chums no longer included the then Lord Chancellor.

Lord Butler has expressed his concerns about the way in which the Prime Minister conducts his business, and particularly about the fact that the advice of senior civil servants is often not considered. We now learn from documents released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as a result of my requests that the most senior civil servant in the Department advised against dismantling the Lord Chancellor's role very strongly indeed. He said:

"My advice is that the Lord Chancellor should resist all proposals to dismantle his office . . . the fact that the Lord Chancellor is also a senior Minister is a particular advantage".

The Prime Minister made the changes without even considering such advice. He may well feel in retrospect that it would be better never to have started the process of abolishing such an important post; it has brought him nothing but trouble and hasty backtracking.

Clause 1 recognises the constitutional principle of the rule of law and the Lord Chancellor's role in that context, and that the clause itself need not be justiciable. However, the clause does not go far enough. The Bill does not recognise the twin principles of the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. It does not urge the Lord Chancellor to use his best endeavours to ensure respect for the rule of law, which is a key role for him to act with other Ministers and in Cabinet. The rule of the law is not explained in any detailed measure in our constitution, and we agree with the Government that to make it justiciable would give judges too wide a scope to determine our constitutional law.

In one way or another, I am listening to a rewriting of our constitution. Many of us say that the sovereignty of Parliament is a valid constitutional concept because it represents the sovereignty of the people, which is inalienable. My difficulty with my hon. Friend's argument is that we are discussing very big constitutional themes. I do not know how the rule of law is defined, who defines it, how it is a constitutional document and how we can safeguard it. Perhaps my hon. Friend will point out where the rule of law is satisfactorily defined in the Bill so that we, the people—let us use the language of constitutions—can determine whether the Bill is consonant with the rule of law.

The answer might be that academics identify various categories of the rule of law, which cover everything from the simple statement that "the law rules", to examining issues involving arbitrary power and discretion. The term can be used very widely.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that a case exists for placing parliamentary sovereignty at the core of the definition of the rule of law and including it in clause 1. My method, new clause 8, involves recognising a separate principle concerning the sovereignty of Parliament in clause 1. Clause 1 is included in the Bill because of the proposed abolition of the role of the Lord Chancellor, and it defines exactly what his roles have been in the past, given that his current role is being changed. The original proposal was to abolish him completely, but we have made a little progress on that point.

New clause 8(2) would require the Lord Chancellor to

"use his best endeavours to ensure that the rule of law is respected"

by Ministers other than himself, which is our understanding of what a Lord Chancellor does in Cabinet. If a Minister proposes a draft legislative measure that, in the Lord Chancellor's opinion, is about to impinge on the rule of law, it is his constitutional duty to speak up in Cabinet and say so, which is what new clause 8(2) would allow. That point should be made clear on the face of the Bill.

I return to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash): can the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) think of an example of a Lord Chancellor in the present Administration or the previous Administration who has not discharged his functions according to clause 1(b)?

It is because we believe that the proud tradition of the role of Lord Chancellor is to uphold the principles of the rule of law that we are so anxious to have such a provision on respecting the rule of law added to the Bill.

How can we possibly know? I presume that the Lord Chancellor's advice is given in confidence to the Cabinet. We will not know one way or the other. That is part of the reason why one wants to tickle out what these provisions mean.

I agree that we want to add to the Bill that part of the Lord Chancellor's duty should be to speak up in Cabinet for the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. Of course we do not know exactly what happens in Cabinet until the memoirs are written, and the 30-year rule no longer applies. It is my impression, however, with which I hope that my hon. Friend might agree, that successive Lord Chancellors—senior figures in their own right, legally qualified, and towards the end of their career—have been prepared to stand up for the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the important role of the sovereignty of our Parliament. We would like to preserve the Lord Chancellor's existing duties in respect of the rule of law, and to ensure that the change in the more general duties of the office of Lord Chancellor does not alter the important duty to bring to the attention of other members of the Government any proposed action that may offend against the rule of law.

I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am concerned about the way in which he has chosen to try to do it. First, if he accepts that the Lord Chancellor's existing constitutional role is to protect the rule of law, why is he concerned? Clause 1(b) expressly says that

"the Lord Chancellor's existing constitutional role in relation to that principle"

must survive. He is therefore just repeating an existing provision. It concerns me that, in fact, his new clause 8 would erode that duty, because all that new clause 8(2) would require the Lord Chancellor to do is to

"use his best endeavours to ensure that the rule of law is respected".

New clause 8(1) separates the two, saying,

"Together with the sovereignty of Parliament, the rule of law shall continue to be a central principle",

but requires the Lord Chancellor to protect only the second, not the first.

That is exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—that the rule of law comprises the sovereignty of Parliament and the courts, and that it is therefore wrong to describe the sovereignty of Parliament as separate from the rule of law. My view is that both are true. The sovereignty of Parliament is a separate principle, but it is on that that the most important parts of the rule of law are based—that the courts in this country implement laws passed by Parliament, and that the sovereignty of that Parliament is implicit in that principle. I fully accept that that is arguable. The key difference now is that for the first time we are seeking to set that out in statute.

The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) says, as did the Lord Chancellor in the other place, that the provision that the existing constitutional role is not adversely affected is adequate. Given that part 1 of the Bill is designed to have a declaratory effect, however, we want to go one stage further and include the reference to respect and best endeavours. We feel that that takes the provision a little further and improves it.

Is not this House at something of a disadvantage? I do not wish to make any disparaging or facetious comments about the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who is extremely diligent and tries extremely hard, but it is a great pity that a Cabinet Minister is not dealing with this issue. Is it not also a pity that, because the Attorney-General is not a Member of this House, and the Solicitor-General, a Law Officer of the Crown who is a Member of this House, is not present, we are at a disadvantage because of the way in which the Government are treating this House in that context?

I do not want the Lord Chancellor to end up in the House of Commons. I like the fact that he is in the House of Lords. We will debate that later. I am somewhat surprised that the Solicitor-General has not seen fit to come here today, but there are doubtless reasons for that.