(urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for defence modernisation, and in particular if he will make a statement on the future of the Saxa Vord station in Unst.

Defence modernisation measures announced to Parliament and to Ministry of Defence staff today will improve the support given to our armed forces, release resources for the front line and for new capabilities, and make the best use of taxpayers' money. The future defence supply chain initiative will improve current service levels, enhance operational capability and put the armed forces in a better position to cope with "surge" logistics requirements, while also significantly reducing costs.

The Ministry of Defence has selected an in-house option, which involved close consultation with the trade unions, to provide the best possible combination of effectiveness and cost in our defence supply chain. By updating processes, improving staff training, rationalising the distribution network and closing storage depots at Stafford by the end of 2007, Llangennech by mid-2008 and Longtown by mid-2009, we expect to make savings of over £50 million a year by 2010 and over £400 million during the next 10 years. The new organisation will require about 2,000 fewer civilian posts and about 50 fewer armed forces personnel. Those reductions will contribute to the wider MOD manpower reductions announced in the 2004 White Paper.

A study of the future role of the defence munitions centre at Crombie in west Dunfermline has been completed, and the MOD has decided—subject to consultation with the national trade unions—to implement its recommendations. The study determined that the explosives storage capacity available at DMC Crombie was not required to meet the known and projected storage liability of its customers. In future, Crombie will concentrate on providing a loading-offloading function for Her Majesty's ships and royal fleet auxiliaries, together with berthing and other jetty operations.

If the study's recommendations are implemented, there will be a reduction of 142 posts at DMC Crombie. It is expected that 67 posts will go in the first year, with the remaining 75 being phased out between 2006–07 and 2009–10. Implementation of the recommendations will have the potential to deliver savings of some £18.1 million over 10 years. Subject to the conclusion of trade union consultation, the Army Base Repair Organisation's proposal to start phase 1 of a two-part rationalisation programme will also begin. Phase 1 addresses the immediate impact of the downturn in the ABRO defence revenue projections, but it will not diminish the range of capabilities that the organisation can currently deliver to the front line. As a result, ABRO will reduce its head count to approximately 2,150 posts by 31 March 2006, which includes the potential for up to 246 redundancies.

The changes will realise annual manpower cost savings in the region of £2.1 million in 2005–06, and £8.3 million a year thereafter. As a direct consequence of an announcement made today by Rolls-Royce Defence Aerospace on the outcome of an open competition for future overhaul and component repair on RB199 engine modules, up to 50 jobs will also be lost at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency's engines business unit at Fleetlands in Gosport, Hampshire. The Ministry of Defence has agreed that DARA can now begin the formal 30-day consultation process with the trade unions.

The 2003 defence White Paper recognised that the international situation is radically different from that of the cold war. As a consequence, the size and structure of our armed forces have been subject to a great many changes as our armed forces have adapted to meet the changed environment. The Ministry of Defence is also announcing two such changes today. The cold war radar station at RAF Saxa Vord on the Shetland island of Unst will be put on care and maintenance from April 2006, subject to consultation with the trade unions. That will mean that the station is effectively closed, but that the main operational part of the estate will continue to be maintained should it be required for future use. Further work will be undertaken to consider how much of the remainder of the station will be retained. Radar cover at the level required can be provided by other RAF radars augmented by those of the National Air Traffic Service. Placing the station on care and maintenance means that we can reinstate radar capability should the threat assessment change. Some 70 service personnel, 30 MOD civilians and 10 contractor staff will be affected by the proposal.

I understand that that will be disappointing news for our staff, the island of Unst, which has a population of about 700, and the Shetland islands community. Naturally, I will be happy to work with the Scottish Executive, the local authority and hon. Members to consider any measures within the MOD remit that might help the local community adjust to the proposed change.

As announced on 21 July 2004, ground-based air defence will also be transferred to the Army, and the four RAF GBAD squadrons will be disbanded. I can now inform the House that 37 Squadron RAF Regiment based at RAF Wittering will disband by March 2006, that 16 Squadron, based at RAF Honington, will disband by March 2007 and that 15 Squadron and the RAF GBAD wing headquarters, which is also based at RAF Honington, and 26 Squadron based at RAF Waddington, will disband by March 2008. This phased programme will allow the Royal Regiment of Artillery to take over the pan-GBAD role. The RAF Regiment will now focus on its role protecting other elements of the armed forces particularly on deployment.

As part of those changes, both 3 Squadron RAF Regiment, based at RAF Aldergrove—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should be patient, calm down and listen. As part of those changes, both 3 Squadron RAF Regiment, based at RAF Aldergrove and the Queen's Colour Squadron, based at RAF Uxbridge will be expanded by around 40 personnel each to enhance their operational capability to match that of the other four regular RAF Regiment field squadrons. That will improve the units' ability to deploy on operations and so enhance the operational flexibility of the RAF Regiment in its force protection role. Around 340 posts will be lost as a result of these changes, which form part of the 7,500 post reductions announced last July. I do not know where Opposition Members were when that was announced. I do not expect any redundancies additional to those announced in the House on 9 December 2004 to result from this announcement.

As a consequence of the decision taken last July, the RAF has conducted an overall review of the structure and basing of the RAF Regiment. As a result of that work, 1 Squadron RAF Regiment will move from RAF St. Mawgan to RAF Honington by March 2007. In addition, 2625 (County of Cornwall) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, based alongside 1 Squadron at RAF St. Mawgan will be disbanded with effect from November 2006. That decision has been taken because Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons need to be based alongside regular units to maximise training opportunities and to give auxiliary personnel access to equipment held by the regular unit. With 1 Squadron's relocation, that would not be possible at St. Mawgan. Around 75 reservists will be affected. Members of 2625 Squadron will be offered the opportunity to continue their reservist activities with other parts of the armed forces reservist organisations or with an alternative RAF unit elsewhere.

We are doing everything possible to mitigate the impact on the people affected by these announcements. Our current plans envisage that the majority of reductions will be achieved through a combination of natural wastage and voluntary early release, but some compulsory redundancies may prove necessary. Staff and the trade unions are being kept fully informed of developments through meetings, briefings and formal consultation.

Finally—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Hon. Members want the information, and they are getting it—why are they complaining? Finally, the Ministry of Defence is today announcing that the Royal Navy military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—project has been granted approval to enter the assessment phase of the programme. That is good news for the Royal Navy and for the UK armed forces as a whole. MARS will be a cornerstone of our future worldwide operations, replacing many of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's existing ships. It will support our new aircraft carriers and the rest of the fleet, as well as deployed amphibious, land and air forces close to the shore.

Where any of these announcements impact on our people, we are doing everything possible to mitigate that impact. Our current plans envisage that the majority of civilian reductions will be achieved through a combination of natural wastage and voluntary early release but, as I said, some compulsory redundancies may prove necessary. There are no redundancies from armed forces staff, and the trade unions are being kept fully informed of developments through meetings, briefings and the formal consultation process.

I thank the Minister for that substantial answer. I also thank him for his earlier co-operation with me prior to coming to the House today. However, it beggars belief that this information was to be put before Parliament in a written statement. That was surely an abuse of process. I am also disappointed that the Secretary of State himself is not here. I have seen a calling notice from the Ministry of Defence press office indicating that the Secretary of State will hold an off-camera briefing for journalists at 1.30 p.m. If he can brief journalists, surely he should brief this House first.

The news that the Minister brings with regard to RAF Saxa Vord is very bleak for Unst, which is one of the remotest and most economically fragile communities in the country. In a community of 700 people, the loss of 100 jobs and incomes is a devastating blow. Will the Minister assure me that, after almost 60 years, the Ministry of Defence will not simply turn the key in the door and walk away from RAF Saxa Vord? What will he do to ensure that the community is not left to sink? Consultation with trade unions is all very well, but surely there must be consultation with the people most directly affected—the people of Unst themselves.

Will the Minister meet a delegation from my constituency of representatives from the local economic development agencies and the community to ensure that the withdrawal of the RAF from Unst, if it is to go ahead, is done with some sensitivity to the needs and wishes of the local community?

I fully appreciate that it is a bleak statement for the hon. Gentleman's constituents on Unst. I recognise that it will have an impact on the community of 700 people. As I said, we are happy to work with the local authority, the Scottish Executive and the hon. Gentleman to see what can be done to mitigate any decisions arising from the announcement. At present it is for consultation. I assure him that I will happily meet him and any colleagues whom he would like to bring to a meeting, so that we can explore how to co-operate to give assistance to his constituents.

I apologise to the House for my failure in my opening remarks to refer to the fact that I am responding this morning, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen should wait and be patient. We have time. We do not have to rush this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a meeting discussing responses following the bombings in London in recent weeks. The meeting has priority and has long been scheduled. He means no disrespect to you, Mr. Speaker, or the House. He has other Ministers because he has other duties which are also important. It does not in any way minimise the importance of what I have said. Notice of the written statements has been on the Order Paper since early this morning and the statements have been made available.

First, on behalf of the whole House, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) the opportunity of bringing the Minister to the House so that he can answer on these important matters. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regard it as a gross discourtesy to Parliament that these important announcements about defence contracts and the restructuring of the Royal Air Force are being sneaked out by way of six ministerial written statements on the last day before the long summer recess. As we have heard, they affect constituencies across the land, from Orkney and Shetland to Cornwall and Gosport. Few Members in the House will not be affected. The Minister's response, which lasted more than 10 minutes, shows how serious and wide-ranging these announcements are and what a grave discourtesy it is to the House that he has been forced to come here and did not offer a statement in the first place. I am rather sorry for the Minister, who is a courteous gentleman. He has been sent here to do the Secretary of State's dirty work, when the Secretary of State himself should have come to the House to answer these points.

As the hon. Orkney and Shetland said, the discourtesy is compounded by the fact that the Secretary of State has time this afternoon to hold a press conference, at which journalists will be afforded the privilege of cross-examining him—a privilege denied to elected Members of this House. It is unacceptable that we will not have that privilege for a further three months.

Furthermore, although this is not one of a number of ministerial statements today, I understand that there is a proposal to scrap nearly all the instructual flying at our 14 university air squadrons, which have been in existence since 1925. My understanding is that the proposal will take effect from 5 October—five days before the House returns—and that there is to be a briefing at RAF Cranwell next Wednesday when the university air squadron officers commanding will be briefed. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether that is true. What are his plans for the university air squadrons? It would be unacceptable if this decision, which affects about 1,000 students across the land, 60 per cent. of whom go on as pilots to join the RAF, were presented to us as a fait accompli when we return in October.

This is part of the steady war of attrition on the RAF, whose number will soon be reduced to 41,000, half of what it was 12 years ago. There is a shortage of pilots, weapons systems operators and technicians. Although the new Typhoon is slowly entering service, morale is low and the entire Jaguar fleet is being scrapped. Yet in the strategic defence review, which was the brainchild of the present Secretary of State, the Government acknowledged,

"Since SDR, our Armed Forces have conducted operations that have been more complex and greater in number than we had envisaged. We have effectively been conducting continual concurrent operations, deploying further afield, to more places, more frequently and with a greater variety of missions than set out in the SDR planning assumptions".

Hon. Members should note the next words, which are those of the current Leader of House when he was Secretary of State for Defence:

"We expect to see a similar pattern of operations in the future."

In other words, our armed forces are being asked to do ever more with less and less.

Last week in the other place, Ministers were subjected to an unprecedented combined assault from six former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, many of whom the Prime Minister appointed. As Sir Max Hastings says in today's Daily Mail:

"There is a crisis of confidence from top to bottom in the British Army."

Britain's armed forces have been poorly repaid for the magnificent service that they have given to the Government. It is time that Ministers repaid the honour that our armed forces bestow upon them.

Let me say again that the Secretary of State meant no discourtesy to hon. Members. I made an error in not explaining at the beginning that the Secretary of State had another commitment and that that was why I am here.

There was no attempt to sneak out the information. Several statements are tabled today, two of which relate to the subject of the urgent question. Clearly, we have sought to ensure that hon. Members have all the appropriate information about the announcements. Hon. Members who remember that the announcements were made last year will know that today's statements today effectively put the meat on the bone of information that had already been given to them to a large extent. There has been no attempt on the Government's part to prevent everyone from having the appropriate and required information.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about me personally, I do not feel that I am being sent here to do the Secretary of State's job. He is well able to defend himself in any circumstances. [Interruption.]

Order. I felt that it was my duty to call a Minister to come to the House. The Minister is here, answering the points that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) wanted to raise. We should not labour the point about which Minister comes before us. The important thing is that we are questioning a Minister of the Crown.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister is here reluctantly.

The right hon. Gentleman says that I am here reluctantly. Answering to the House for my responsibilities as a Minister is a paramount duty. It is one of my top responsibilities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares that view. It is what I am paid to do and that is why I am here today.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked about university air squadrons. I have no knowledge of the matter that he raised. I shall look into it the moment I return to the Ministry of Defence and if there is anything that I should communicate to him, I will do that as quickly as possible.

Under the Labour Government, our forces have been valued and supported. We have had the longest sustained increase in public expenditure for more than 20 years. I can find no better words than those of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said last year on 16 December:

"The Opposition agree that there is a need for our armed forces to be more usable."—[Official Report, 16 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1801.]

The problem with the Opposition is that their hearts tell them that what we are doing is right but they simply do not have the guts to support us.

My hon. Friend announced the closure of the storage and distribution centre at Stafford in apparently a little more than a year's time. Does he know that the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency has 43 presences in the United Kingdom and one high activity centre, which is RAF Stafford? Yet Stafford is to be the first to close. In the context of running a business, I would have thought that the place with the most valuable asset would deserve more attention before the decision was made. Does my hon. Friend realise that it is estimated that more than 2,000 jobs will be lost in the closures at Stafford, Llangennech and Longtown? Does he know that a good half of those jobs are in Stafford alone? Does he appreciate how substantial a blow that will prove to the local economy and what a terrible shock it will be to the people who learn that their jobs are going? Will jobs actually be lost? Can he say anything today about the civilian jobs at RAF Stafford if closure takes place? There is a critical decision to be made—

Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. It is a proper concern for a diligent and hard-working Member of Parliament from any party. As I said, job losses will result from the announcement. The proposals are out for consultation with the trade unions. Clearly, hon. Members have a role to play. If they want to make representations about any of the changes and proposed job losses, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be happy to receive them before any final decisions are made.

I appreciate that the process is difficult, but I believe that it is the right process for the objectives that we are trying to achieve. However, I also believe that consultation must be genuine, and we want to have a dialogue. Ultimately, we must make the decisions, but decisions are better if they are well informed by local opinion and views from all sides. We will try to take the views of any hon. Member on board.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for ensuring that a Minister was brought here to explain the consequences of one of today's 65 written statements. In the past week, there have been 156 written statements; last week, there were 34. A charitable person might say that the Government were anxious to convey information to hon. Members as soon as possible. However, it is possible that there is an ulterior motive. Perhaps in the last week before a recess, written statements should all be subject to recall, just as you kindly accepted the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

The Minister gave a roll-call of closures. He said that 37 Squadron RAF Regiment, which is based at RAF Wittering, will disband by March 2006; 16 Squadron, which is based at RAF Honington, will disband by March 2007; RAF GBAD Wing Headquarters, also at RAF Honington, and 26 Squadron, based at RAF Waddington, will disband by March 2008. Those are among the 7,000 RAF redundancies that have been announced. It has also been decided that 2625 (County of Cornwall) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, based alongside 1 Squadron at RAF St. Mawgan should be disbanded from November 2006. The Minister said that he was putting meat on the bone. May I suggest that that is butchery?

No, the hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I did not adequately present my points, but I thought that I had been clear. In July 2004, we announced that the role of providing ground-based air defence would be transferred to the Army from four Royal Air Force squadrons and that they would therefore be disbanded. The meat on the bone—so to speak—that I have sought to give the House are the details of the squadrons that will be affected by the decision. The decision was already known and the principle should therefore not surprise the hon. Gentleman.

I am not responsible for all the ministerial statements that were tabled today. We have accepted the principle of Ministers making written statements. If there are to be changes to that, it is a matter for the usual channels and House, not for me as a Minister, to determine. I have tried to underpin in my remarks today that, as a Minister, I have a prime responsibility to come here and answer for Government decisions. That is what I am trying to do. There has been no attempt on my part or that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do anything about which the House should not be made aware. We have made the written statements available in the normal way. If there is a problem with that mechanism, that is a wider issue on which I cannot make a decision. I have sought in every possible way to provide colleagues with this information, and I will continue to work with any colleagues who have queries or worries, so that they can be properly informed about this decision.

The Opposition spokesman raised the issue of university air squadrons. Does my hon. Friend accept that his inability to give us any information about the future of those squadrons will create great uncertainty in bases such as RAF Church Fenton in my constituency, which depend on the university air squadrons? Will he clarify later today what is going to happen, perhaps by means of a further written statement, because it would be unacceptable if an announcement on that matter were made during the parliamentary recess?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but I am being asked to comment on some piece of hearsay, or whatever it is on which the hon. Member for Aldershot has based his remarks. I am not in a position to do that. It would be improper for me to mislead the House by pretending that I had that information. I have given an undertaking that I will take the issue up immediately I get back to the MOD, and if there is something that should or could be said, we will say it.

In associating myself with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), may I ask the Minister simply to confirm to those in the House and those outside that the Government had no intention of making an oral statement today, but every intention of briefing the press?

I think that I covered that point earlier—The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is a respected Member of the House. I treat him with the same respect with which he treats me, and I will seek to give him an answer. It was intended that there should be written ministerial statements today—[Interruption.]

That is not the point.

Patience! Just calm down. Those statements would be augmented by briefing in the normal way that goes on right across government—[Interruption.] When the Conservatives were in government, they did exactly the same in terms of putting information into the media. That is the right and proper way to disseminate information. The first responsibility of the Government is to give the information to the House, and that is what we did in the written statements.

The shipbuilding industry in the UK has been given a tremendous boost over the past few years by record investment, bringing back to parts of the north-east shipbuilding that was taken away by the Conservative Government. May I therefore welcome my hon. Friend's announcement on the MARS programme? That project will provide a future for the shipbuilding industry in the UK. Will he give me an assurance that urgent talks will take place with shipbuilders throughout the country to ensure that the necessary skills and capacity exist in the industry to meet the requirements of the MARS programme?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific assurance on that point, but in view of the other announcements that I have made today, all these matters will be taken on board so far as the future shipbuilding programme is concerned.

So that we may better understand the Government's record on defence, will the Minister confirm that, alongside the amalgamation of Scotland's infantry regiments, since 1997 thousands of jobs have been lost and facilities have closed in Scotland? Those affected include RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leuchars, RAF Kinloss, HMS Gannet, RAF Stornoway, Fairlie, Rosyth, Machrihanish, and Bin Hill. Hundreds of jobs on the Clyde have also been affected. Is it not the truth that conventional defence is being sacrificed because the Government are more prepared to spend billions of pounds on new generations of weapons of mass destruction?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman stands, but I am a passionate Unionist. I believe in the United Kingdom, although I am not so sure that he and his party do—[Interruption.] Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government have a record, of which we can be proud, of supporting our forces, of investing in them, and of ensuring that they are capable of meeting the challenges that they face today. That means taking difficult decisions. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that will never be in government and will never have to take any difficult decisions.

It is with dismay and incomprehension that I find myself asking the Minister to explain why we are facing job losses at Llangennech, where up-to-date, state-of-the-art equipment has recently been installed. Although unemployment levels have come down rapidly in that area in recent years, it is still very much harder to find alternative employment there than in many of the more prosperous areas of Britain. This decision is also out of keeping with our policy of decentralisation. Please will the Minister explain?

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. I was made aware of them earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that this is part of an overall examination of the support and capability of our forces, and that difficult decisions have to be made in that respect. I understand that it is difficult for her and her constituents in Llangennech. I am sure that she will agree that there are greater opportunities for alternative employment in Wales today as a result of our economy being that much stronger, although that in no way mitigates the difficulties that people will face as a result of this decision. However, as I have said to other hon. Members, we will work as closely as we can with local authorities, local Members of Parliament and others to overcome any difficulties caused by these announcements. They are painful and difficult, but I believe that they are necessary in the circumstances that we face.

In recent weeks, we have heard of aircraft being unable to fly because of an absence of spares, pilots having only 15 hours' flying time a month, and training being unable to take place because there is no blank ammunition. The Minister has made an important statement today—reluctantly, I suggest. What change will the things he has announced today make to the deplorable circumstances in which our armed forces are acting at the moment?

The hon. Gentleman—

The right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman—I beg his pardon—makes an important point, and I know that he will be carrying out an important task in his new role in the coming months. What we are seeking to do today is to improve the support and opportunities for our armed forces. These measures will release considerable resources for improving our capability on the front line, and they will make the best use of taxpayers' money. These are the tough decisions that we have to consider at the end of the day. As I have said, improved support for our front-line resources in the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves in different areas around the world must be our top priority in the modernisation process. These proposals will release resources so that we can do that better.

May I pluck out the one golden thread from the Minister's remarks and test its strength? He referred to expansions at, among other places, RAF Aldergrove. Will he give the House some details of the nature and extent of those expansions?

At this stage I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the full details, and I apologise for that. The proposals will mean extra job facilities at Aldergrove, and I will ensure that, when we have fuller details, he and others will be given the information as quickly as possible. If he will bear with me, I will ensure that he gets the information.

Will the Minister tell us what effect his statement will have on morale in the RAF?

What is important is that we recognise that—[Interruption.] If hon. Members want me to answer—[Interruption.]

Order. A Front-Bench Member should not behave in this manner. A Minister should not be interrupted when he is speaking.

As I have made clear in my statement, there are to be no job losses in the armed forces as a result of these statements. They will affect civilian jobs. I recognise that any decision that we make affecting our forces will have an impact on the morale of everyone in the forces, both serving personnel and civilians. However, I believe that our forces recognise that they have a Secretary of State and a Government who are prepared to back and support our forces with the necessary resources. I am sometimes tempted to be a bit party political about these points—[Hon. Members: "No!"] I am sure I should not, but the hon. Gentleman's party fought an election campaign proposing a £2.6 billion cut in support for our forces. It is appalling to watch the Conservatives crying crocodile tears and wringing out their handkerchiefs today. When they were in government, there were massive cuts in our services, dictated by the fact that they had mucked up the economy. That had nothing to do with the defence of the realm.

The BBC has announced that there are growing fears about cuts at the munitions facility at Glen Douglas in Argyll. I hope that that report is not true, and that there are to be no cuts there. Will the Minister please tell us what his Department's plans are for the future at Glen Douglas?

I am not aware at this time—[Interruption.] I am trying to be honest with the hon. Gentleman; he can huff and puff all he wants but I am not in a position to give him an answer. I will consider the question that he raises, and I will return to him as soon as I can.

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the week after the recess?

I am repeating much of what I have set out to the House previously, but it may assist Members of the House if I say that the business for the week after the summer recess will be as follows:

Monday 10 October—Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Tuesday 11 October—Remaining stages of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.

Wednesday 12 October—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 13 October—A debate on combating benefit fraud on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 14 October—Private Member's Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 17 October—Remaining stages of the Transport (Wales) Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 October and 20 October will be:

Thursday 13 October—A debate on e-Government.

Thursday 20 October—A debate on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit.

What will the Leader of the House do to sort out the unedifying mess that we have seen in this place this morning? A Minister of the Crown has been dragged to the House, in response to an urgent question, to make a statement that clearly affects Members in all parts of the House. It is simply not good enough.

What will the Leader of the House do to address the fact that 156 written statements have been rushed out in the last few days before the recess? One cannot help but believe that the Government have not lost their habit of seeking to bury bad news. Will he explain why no statement was made to the House on the changes to the rules applying to special advisers and their relationship with civil servants? This week, that was raised with the Government by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which stated:

"Our concern about the 'hole in the corner' way in which the changes were being proposed has been reinforced by the failure to inform parliament or make a public announcement about this amendment to the legislation."

It also stated:

"Even if the intention is not to extend special advisers' powers, the manner in which the changes have been made could lead to this very perception and consequently a loss of trust in the machinery of Government."

How can the Leader of the House justify the Government's actions in the face of such stinging criticism from our independent standards watchdog?

Despite the events of the past few weeks, Members will now not have the opportunity to question the Government on matters of terrorism, other important national issues or constituency issues until the week beginning 10 October. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to stress that the recess is much more than a holiday for Members; it is an essential time for us all to do important constituency work. But does the Leader of the House not accept that people outside Westminster will not understand this long gap during which MPs cannot question the Government about what they are doing? Will he now accept that it is time for MPs to be able to table and receive answers to written parliamentary questions right through recess periods, and for the Government to make written ministerial statements as appropriate during recess periods? Will he ensure that that change is introduced immediately?

I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman's point about the number of written ministerial statements is. I assume that he is saying that they should have been made, and that he is not saying that he would have preferred a smaller number, so he has left me in some difficulty as to what his precise point is. After all, each of the Ministers who have made those statements have informed the House, which I assume is precisely what he would have wanted.

On special advisers, a written ministerial statement has been made on that subject, and it is important that the House is kept informed in the normal way.

On the length of the recess, I am a little surprised that this is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has addressed the issue. He made no observation about it when I announced the date of the recess, and he made no observation yesterday in relation to the summer Adjournment debate, when the matter could properly have been raised. I am left with the slight feeling that perhaps only when the Daily Mail rang him up and asked him about it did he think that it was appropriate to make a comment—a subject to which I might return next time he complains about a Minister not coming to the House and not keeping it properly informed. It might be that he prefers to see his name in the Daily Mail rather than in the pages of Hansard.

I have always been against a 10-week break, but as someone who was on the picket line yesterday, with my hon. Friends and no Tory MPs, may I ask whether efforts will be made before the beginning of the summer recess to try to resolve that industrial dispute? If it is not resolved, is there not every possibility that further action will take place? The cleaners have a very strong case indeed—they are not being treated the same as those who are directly employed by the Commons. Those who jeer should try living on £5 an hour with no holiday entitlement and no pensions. Such hypocrisy is unacceptable in the House of Commons. I am pleased, however, that the House of Commons Commission is apparently to provide better accommodation than the squalid rooms that I mentioned last week. At least that is one step forward.

My hon. Friend has raised this matter repeatedly. On the last occasion, I indicated that I would raise the matter in the House of Commons Commission, which was done on Monday. As he has mentioned, the House of Commons Commission will be finding better accommodation for the cleaners, which is right. As far as the industrial dispute between the cleaners and their employers is concerned, obviously, efforts are being made by the employers to seek an appropriate and satisfactory solution.

As we enter what I consider to be an excessively long recess, and at the risk of being accused of being the first to call for the recall of Parliament, may I express the hope that there will be no practical impediment to recalling Parliament if events demand that course of action, and that Ministers will find a way of keeping all Members, not just Front Benchers, advised of developments in security matters?

I have just one other question for the Leader of the House, on Iraq. When he was Secretary of State for Defence, whatever our differences, I recognised that he was assiduous in keeping the House informed of developments by making statements. We have British forces in the field, who, sadly, occasionally take casualties. We have a deteriorating situation with, we are told, 34 civilian deaths in Iraq every day, and many people assessing whether Iraq is approaching civil war. And even as cautious an observer as Senator Joe Biden has said:

"It's not a question of 'staying the course' but of changing course".

Can it therefore be right that we have not had a single statement or debate specifically on Iraq in this Parliament? Indeed, the last statement was six months ago, and the last debate more than a year ago. Is not the House entitled to have a view on the conduct of our policy in Iraq?

Clearly, should the House need to return during the previously announced recess, it is important that that should take place. I made it clear that should such a requirement arise, there will be no practical difficulty for the House to reassemble, wherever that might be. The hon. Gentleman, and other Members, will understand what I mean, given that the length of this recess has largely been dictated by the need to improve the security arrangements in the Chamber.

As far as Iraq is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely fair in being so critical. There has already been a defence debate, which was an obvious opportunity—my recollection is that the title of the debate was "Britain in the World"—to raise the question of Iraq. Only this week, we have had Foreign Office questions, and there are four-weekly opportunities to question Defence Ministers. I do not therefore accept the criticism that there have not been opportunities in this Parliament to deal with the question of Iraq.

The Leader of the House will be aware that two days ago the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality made an important statement changing the treatment of refugees, who will now be given five years' leave to remain instead of immediate settlement. No consideration appears to have been given to the impact of that change on children, who face the prospect of having their lives torn apart twice if the proposal goes ahead. Can the Leader of the House assure us that we will have an opportunity to discuss this matter as soon as Parliament returns in October?

I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have given full consideration to the impact on families. That is a necessary consequence of the very difficult decisions that he and his colleagues have to take. Certainly, however, there will be further opportunities to debate and discuss this matter when the House returns in the autumn.

Earlier this year, the House passed legislation—with the support of the Procedure Committee, the House authorities and indeed, you, Mr. Speaker—to enable Parliament square to be restored to its normal peace and tranquillity. Placards remain evident directly opposite New Palace Yard even though we are in a time of heightened security, so can the Leader of the House say when the authorities will carry out the wishes of Parliament and restore Parliament square and the pavement to peace and tranquillity?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that appropriate legislation is in place to allow effective action to be taken. Obviously, it is necessary for those responsible for enforcing the legislation to determine the correct balance between people's freedom to demonstrate and communicate their views, security requirements, and hon. Members' need to get on with their work properly and in peace.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that George Cubie, one of the House's senior officers, will have retired by the time the House returns after the summer? He has only put in 39 years' service and could not stay on to match my 40, but he beats anyone else in the Chamber today. As Clerk of Committees, he presided over the greatest transformation in the back-up services available to Committees in 25 years, and all the Committee Chairmen are grateful for that. He has been a wonderful source of advice to me and to the other Chairmen here today. We will miss him, as he has been great to work with. Will my right hon. Friend join us in wishing him a very happy retirement?

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. When the members of the Modernisation Committee spontaneously elected me as their Chairman recently, I was able to pay tribute to George Cubie's work on behalf of that Committee. He has taken forward a very considerable programme of change and I know how widely admired he is by previous members of that Committee and how much the House will miss his services.

Will the Leader of the House reflect on the number of written statements issued this week? There have been 156, and that is out of all proportion. Although he has defended that this morning, I believe that he should think carefully about this matter. He has referred to the Modernisation Committee, which agreed that hon. Members should be able to table written questions during the recess. That provision was supported by his predecessor, so why are the Government so opposed to it now?

I make the same point to the hon. Gentleman that I made to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Does he think that there should be a smaller number of written statements, or that written statements should not be made to inform the House of developments in the work of Government Departments? I should have thought that he would welcome the number of written statements and their quality, as they make clear the Government's determination to keep hon. Members fully informed. Obviously, it is important that hon. Members retain the ability to solicit information from Departments during the recess. I am sure that they can take advantage of the generous allowances made available for secretarial facilities and write to Ministers, who would expect to respond.

Can we have a debate when we return on the implications for the structure of the NHS of the Government's choice agenda? Does my right hon. Friend understand my despair at the possibility of another restructuring in the NHS? Does he agree that the Government's reluctance to let changes bed down before uprooting them and starting again is positively Maoist?

I am fully confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and her Ministers are well aware of the significant amount of change experienced by those who work so hard on our behalf in the health service. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that the NHS should not be in a state of perpetual revolution. It is important that those hard-working people have the opportunity to deal with recent changes and to continue to serve our communities so well.

When we return, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on industrial derating in Northern Ireland? Thousands of jobs will be lost if the Government maintain their present position. Understandably, there is massive concern, especially among small and medium-sized businesses.

I appreciate that this is an important and significant issue for Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland writes to her on this subject.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on what is being done to tackle health inequalities? Although increased expenditure in the NHS has produced improvements such as shorter waiting times and better treatment for many illnesses, it has been reported this week that people in my constituency of Dudley, North die an average of eight years earlier than their neighbours in the south of the borough. Such a debate would enable us to examine the causes in detail and to look at the work being done to tackle such inequalities. We would also be able to determine whether resources are being properly targeted to give my constituents the same quality and length of life as those living elsewhere.

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue and one that is central to the way that the Government are tackling health care across the country. The problem of inequality is precisely why we are spending so much money on the NHS. When we came to office, NHS spending amounted to some £34.7 billion. It has risen to £69.7 billion now, and on present plans is estimated to rise to about £92 billion. That money is specifically designed to ensure that the same standards are achieved across the country. We look hard at best practice in different areas to ensure that that is spread across the whole population. We now have the resources available to make sure that that happens.

The Government have a formula for funding police authorities around the country, but the funding for Northamptonshire has been £5 million short over the past three years. That has denied the people of the county at least 50 full-time police officers. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that obvious anomaly?

If the hon. Gentleman had been here in 1997 and seen the poor support given to the police and police authorities by the previous Government, it is possible that he would not be making that observation today. I know that there are more police officers in Northamptonshire today than was the case in 1997.

That is not the point.

The point is that we have substantially increased police funding and police numbers across the country, including in Northamptonshire. The hon. Gentleman should give the Government credit instead of making carping criticisms.

My right hon. Friend will have noted the mocking laughter from Opposition Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised the question of the House of Commons cleaners—[Interruption.] They are laughing again. However, there is considerable support among Labour Members for a proper, fair and just settlement for the cleaners. What is intolerable is that there is a differential between the conditions for permanently employed House staff and those for contract cleaners. There is no logic in that, and it is outrageous that a person can work here for nine years and yet at no point be offered any pension entitlement. That is what has happened to one of the cleaners I spoke to yesterday, and it is not acceptable in modern Britain.

As I understand it, staff directly employed by the House work in a different capacity and do rather different jobs. Leaving that aside, however, I made it clear in my earlier answer that it is important for the employer and the relevant trade union to negotiate and reach a proper settlement. I certainly encourage them to do so.

I want to make it clear that no Conservative Member was mocking the very worthy cause of the contract cleaners. However, we were somewhat amused by the mock heroic efforts of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to join the picket lines, in a throw-back to the 1970s—

Shame!

Order.

I think the Leader of the House will be sympathetic to my request for a statement when the House returns. It is about the 8,500 multiple sclerosis suffers who are desperately waiting for the validation of a drug called AIMSPRO, which has been trialled for the last few years. Changes in medical guidelines have resulted in its withdrawal and as a result, those who have witnessed great improvements in their condition now feel all the symptoms returning. Will the Leader of the House do all that he can to look into this matter before the House returns? It is obviously very cruel when those whose condition has improved greatly see their one chance of such improvements becoming permanent being put into reverse.

Every Member of this House is well aware of the suffering that this appalling disease causes—often to friends and family—and of the importance of appropriate treatment. But the hon. Gentleman and other Members know that the availability of prescribed drugs is determined wholly independently by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which is independent of Government and makes appropriate clinical judgments in the light of the appropriate medical evidence. It is right that that independent approach to this difficult and often sensitive issue should continue.

May I return to the forthcoming change whereby those with refugee status will no longer be given leave to remain in the country? I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 569, which is in my name.

[That this House is concerned at the proposal in the Government's five year strategy for asylum and immigration to end the practice of granting indefinite leave to remain in the UK to people who are given refugee status and to replace this by up to five years' temporary leave to remain; believes that while this may not be legally incompatible with the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention, it is a retrograde step since it reverses the policy of granting indefinite leave introduced by the Government in 1998 without any evidence either that problems have arisen as a result of the current policy or that other countries which grant only temporary leave benefit as a result; is further concerned that the uncertain position this will put refugees in is totally inconsistent with other Government policies to assist the integration of refugees in the UK; further believes that this will inevitably lead to inhumane decisions when refugee families with children are threatened with removal after living in the UK for several years and establishing family life, leading in turn to further pressure on the immigration appeals system, and the caseload of honourable Members; and urges the Government to abandon this unnecessary change.]

That significant policy change, which will affect a lot of people, was announced in a written statement on Tuesday but it will come into effect on 30 August, so it will be impossible to discuss it in this House before it takes effect. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we discuss it as soon as we return from the recess? It is not satisfactory for such a change to be implemented in the middle of the recess.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I have noted the importance of this issue to families, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to write to him about it.

The security work that will be carried out in the Commons in the coming weeks presents us—both new and older Members—with a unique opportunity to compare the length of the coming recess with the previous broken recess, in which we returned for two weeks in September. If that is true, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a short debate on this issue when the House returns, followed by a vote, and permanently settle the question of the recess? Some of those who, like me, voted for the House to return for two weeks in September are now having second thoughts. We would appreciate the opportunity for a further debate and vote.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his fair approach to this issue. I do not believe that I am breaching the confidence of the Modernisation Committee when I tell the House that it discussed the other day the need to consider the parliamentary calendar and to examine not simply the way in which we work across the day—that has been the subject of many such discussions—but our work across the parliamentary schedule. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and as someone who strongly supported the idea of September sittings, I can see that they have not proved as satisfactory as many Members wished. On the other hand, I also recognise the concern, which has been raised today and will go on being raised, about the long period of the recess. Of course, the practical difficulty responsible for such gaps and way in which the previous schedule operated is the timing of the political party conferences. We may well have to address that issue.

Get rid of them.

I know how much Conservative Members are looking forward to their next party conference; Labour Members are probably looking forward to it even more.

There has been much talk, even this morning, about our armed forces and—rightly—about the conflicts in which we are involved, but we tend to forget about Gulf war victims. The medical condition of a constituent of mine, Mr. Murray Lomax, deteriorated after serving in that war, yet he is having to deal with various loopholes in order to get the benefits to which he is entitled. We should look after the people who helped us then, just as much as we look after those who are helping us now.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know from my previous experience the efforts that the Ministry of Defence make to provide appropriate medical care, treatment and assistance to all those who serve this country so well.

As the Government have made the fulfilment of their policy in Northern Ireland dependent on a favourable statement from the IRA, will the Leader of the House find time when we return—if that statement is not up to the Government's expectations—for the Government to outline their new policy for Northern Ireland?

Obviously, we all hope that there will be a favourable statement, and that continuing support can be provided to the people of Northern Ireland in their efforts to establish peace and justice in that part of the world. I am sure that if such a statement is made during the recess, there will be every opportunity to debate it on our return.

First, may I associate myself very strongly with the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) concerning the change in refugee status and the lack of opportunity to discuss it? I also want to take my right hon. Friend back to two weeks ago, when I asked him to arrange for a debate on the middle east peace process. We are at a crucial point in that process. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza could lead to an agreed two-state solution that is recognised internationally, or Israel might see that as the end of the process and continue to occupy sections of the west bank. That would leave an unviable Palestinian state with sections illegally occupied by Israel, and the wherewithal would remain for further conflict. This is an important issue; may we have an early debate on it?

My hon. Friend is right and, as I told him two weeks ago, the Government not only keep this matter under constant review, but are actively engaged in promoting a settlement on both sides of the argument. We believe that we are having some success and that progress is being made. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be an early opportunity for the House to discuss this matter.

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to this morning's news of the crisis in the African republic of Niger which reported that at least 2.5 million people are affected by a very severe food shortage? The United Nations says that at least 150,000 children could die and according to Oxfam, parents are feeding their children on grass and leaves in an attempt to keep them alive. According to a BBC reporter, fewer than one in 10 of the starving are making it to the few feeding centres in the region. I appreciate that there is no time for a debate on this matter, but I remind the Leader of the House that two and a half years ago, the Government were a very big donor to the relief package in Ethiopia. May I ask him to make very strong representations to the Secretary of State for International Development about the urgency of this situation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I know that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development are closely monitoring the situation in that very difficult part of the world, and I undertake to ensure that they write to him about the efforts that they are making.