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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 6 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Tuesday 7 February—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the future of mental health services, followed by a debate on the reorganisation of primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and ambulance trusts.

Wednesday 8 February—Business of the House motion, followed by motions relating to parliamentary allowances and financial assistance for the representative work of Sinn Fein.

Thursday 9 February—Second Reading of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Friday 10 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 13 February—A motion to approve a money resolution on the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Identity Cards Bill.

Tuesday 14 February—Remaining stages of the Health Bill.

Wednesday 15 February—Motion to approve a Statutory Instrument relating to the Renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism Bill.

Thursday 16 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2006 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2006, followed by a debate on tackling health inequalities on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 17 February —The House will not be sitting.

We are now two months away from the start of the Easter recess, and unless we are given the date of the Budget now, the advice of the Treasury Committee on giving good notice of the date of the Budget will have been ignored. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he will be giving us the date of the Budget?

I have asked the Leader of the House every week for a debate on the health service and that request has been ignored. I am pleased to say that hon. Members will indeed be able to raise their concerns about their local health services next week, but in Opposition time, because we think that it is an important subject that should be debated in this House. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour Members will be entirely free to raise their concerns about the health service in that debate, although I am not sure whether the Labour Chief Whip is in a position to stop them?

Talking of the Chief Whip, I have regularly raised the issue of the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle and the vacant post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer that question this week, although it may not be the only post to be filled. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the right hon. Gentleman has been tipped as a future Chief Whip—no greater curse could man have than that.

Those who attend business questions regularly know that the right hon. Gentleman has kept us updated on the odds on the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in the Liberal Democrat leadership contest. I have been looking at some odds, too: the odds on the right hon. Gentleman becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer are 26:1; sadly, the odds on his becoming leader of the Labour party are somewhat longer at 799:1.

Order. I am wondering what that has to do with the business for next week.

I like to keep you in a state of anticipation, Mr. Speaker.

If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would be worried, because the odds on the Chief Whip becoming leader of the Labour party are shorter than the odds on him. Can he confirm that the Chief Whip attacked the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) for being in the Big Brother house and not voting in this House? The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow voted with the Government on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, while the Chief Whip told the Prime Minister that he did not have to.

In order to ensure proper debate, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the education reform Bill will be published in good time for hon. Members to scrutinise it properly before Second Reading? Will the Government provide two days of debate on Second Reading, which would allow enough time to air all the issues and for Ministers to explain their position—and would also give the Chief Whip, whoever they may be, ample time to ensure that Government Members are present to vote?

The business for the week beginning 13 February is very heavy, with the Identity Cards Bill and the Terrorism Bill. However, that week is half-term week for many schools and for many hon. Members' families. The move to a half-term parliamentary recess was designed not only to give hon. Members an opportunity to be in their constituencies, but as a modernising, family-friendly move. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the half-term recess is in the following week? I am sure that the fact that the following week is half-term week in Derbyshire, where the right hon. Gentleman has his seat, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Nottinghamshire.

In that case, perhaps the timing has something to do with the fact that the Opposition deputy Chief Whip has his seat in Derbyshire. That week has been loaded with serious business, but many hon. Members were hoping to spend time with their families. Is that a sign that the Government are abandoning family-friendly policies, or is it just a Government ploy to ensure that Labour rebels are not here to vote?

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her entertaining run through the current issues. I shall do my best to respond, although perhaps not in kind.

I have made it clear that the date of the Budget will be announced as soon as the Government are ready to announce it.

Although the health debate clearly gives informed, thoughtful, considerate Labour Members an opportunity to set out the excellent way in which the health service has been funded and reorganised in recent times, I am sure that we all look forward to discovering whatever is the latest policy from the Conservatives. It clearly will not be the policy on which hon. Members fought the last general election, since the Conservative party seems to be junking each and every piece of that policy not only week by week, but day by day. So perhaps it would be a good opportunity, although I remind the right hon. Lady that I announced a debate on health inequalities in Government time in direct response to the request that was made previously.

As for the appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps I should refer the right hon. Lady to the answer that I gave last week, and indeed the week before that. I am not aware of any impending change in that regard. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), who has assumed those responsibilities, will continue to do the excellent job that he has been doing for some time and may well be doing for some time to come.

On the education Bill, there are proper traditions about the time available to hon. Members for considering a Bill before Second Reading, and I see no reason why it should be necessary to depart from them.

I share the right hon. Lady's concern about the half-term recess dates, which I had a great deal of difficulty in trying to organise. Unfortunately, just over half the local authorities in the country have their half-term in the week commencing 20 February and just under half have it in the week commencing 13 February. It would clearly be helpful in the organisation of business if our local authorities could agree on a single period. I am sorry that the whipping for that week is likely to be high, but that reflects the Government's commitment to some rather important issues that have to be dealt with in that week. Notwithstanding determined efforts on all sides, it has not been possible to find a lighter work load for that period.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the announcement made this morning that identity theft is costing the people of this country £1.7 billion a year. I hope he agrees that a debate on that problem would be useful, not only in highlighting the distress caused to our constituents by this crime but in focusing on what can be done to tackle it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is disappointing about the attitude of many Conservative Members is that while they concentrate their criticisms on, for example, aspects of the use of identity cards in relation to the public sector, the private sector—particularly the banking and credit card industries—suffers very significant financial losses as a result of identity fraud. There is no doubt, as those organisations argue, that the availability of an identity card system will have an enormous impact on reducing the level of fraud. I am sorry that Conservative Members, who otherwise claim to represent the interests of business and the financial community, have failed to take account of that.

Last week, when I asked the Leader of the House about the Government's Arbuthnott report, an expression of utter vacuity crossed his face, so this week I shall try to ask about subjects that he has at least heard of.

Will the Leader of the House set aside two hours for statements—one from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on why stringent carbon emission controls on industry are necessary, followed by another from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on why they are not? From that, we may be able to assess some form of coherent climate change strategy.

May we have a debate or a statement on the Child Support Agency? We were told eight years ago that it was in urgent need of reform, and two months ago the Prime Minister himself said that it was not fit for purpose. We are still waiting for an announcement on the fundamental reform of the CSA that is clearly necessary.

I understand the Leader of the House's difficulties with half-term coinciding with a week of business but does he believe that it is wise, given Tuesday's events, to schedule three controversial Bills for that week? Would it not be better to leave a little extra time for the Chief Whip to understand what is happening in the party and for the Prime Minister to plan his diary engagements?

The Government remain committed to tackling climate change and we continue to review our climate change programme. We have made remarkable progress. If the hon. Gentleman examined the international negotiations that we have led and their results, he would praise the United Kingdom and our efforts to deal with the issue. We are one of only two EU15 countries that are on track for delivering the Kyoto targets. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government on that rather than making carping observations. His party only talks about climate change and has no responsibility for doing something to achieve progress.

The same applies to the hon. Gentleman's observations about the CSA. Its organisation has faced problems over the years but it also provides significant help to some of the most vulnerable families in our community. Although it needs to improve its organisation, and determined efforts are being made to achieve that, we should not overlook the considerable good that it does throughout the country.

I will not add much to my comments about the arrangements for half-term. I made the Government's difficulties clear. Several important items have to be tackled and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that such decisions are not taken lightly. They have to be taken to allow progress to be made on the Government's legislative programme. I hope that he understands that that is the position.

This Sunday will be the second anniversary of the tragic deaths of 23 cockle pickers in Morecambe bay. My right hon. Friend knows that the House approved legislation to go some way towards preventing such disasters from happening again. Despite that, the Government have not yet implemented the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. If there is further delay, illegal gangmasters will have yet another year to operate in the twilight world. I have personally tried to find out where the blockage is, but it is like knitting fog. Will my right hon. Friend identify the blockage and use his influence to unblock that necessary legislation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. He rightly acknowledged that the Government took prompt action to deal with the matter through legislation. It is obviously important that it should be implemented. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is made aware of my hon. Friend's observations.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that, by order of the House, the Senior Salaries Review Body is automatically bound to review Members' salaries this year?

The timing of the arrangements is subject to consultation but there is a regular process for reviewing salaries and arrangements and the SSRB is keen to get that under way in due course.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement as soon as possible on the future of the Post Office card account? He will have seen early-day motion 1531.

[That this House is gravely concerned by the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) decision to withdraw support for the Post Office Card Account when the existing contract expires in 2010 and in particular by the Department's attempt to kill off the Account in advance of 2010, through pilot schemes being introduced immediately when it will deny to new benefit claimants the option of opening a Post Office Card Account, inform 35,000 existing customers that they will have to use a bank or building society instead of the Post Office Card Account and require them to provide their account details, and pay benefits of 2,500 existing customers into a bank account rather than the Post Office Card Account, ignoring the preferences they made when their benefit books were stopped; condemns the fact that, in breach of all plans, these pilot schemes are being introduced without consultation; and calls on the Government to halt these pilot schemes immediately and to institute an immediate review of the DWP's proposal to abolish the Post Office Card Account by 2010.]

It has attracted more than 100 signatures in 24 hours. With few days' consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions is introducing pilots in February that will make it difficult for people who are beginning to receive pensions or benefits to use the Post Office card account. That constitutes an out-and-out attack on the Post Office card account. It was mentioned last week and everyone is concerned. We need a statement. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

The matter can be raised on Monday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions comes to the House to answer questions. However, let me make it clear that the purpose of the arrangements is to allow those who use the existing Post Office card account system to use equally simple and straightforward Post Office accounts at their local post office. The purpose of the pilots is to provide that opportunity, thus allowing people to continue to use facilities in the post office. The arrangements for the card were designed to be interim arrangements to give people an opportunity of developing the use of other sorts of simple, straightforward bank accounts at their local post office. Our approach is entirely consistent and I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members support it.

I hope that the Leader of the House will look again at his answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), because it can be very difficult for people to set up a bank account if they do not have a long residential record.

I want to ask the Leader of the House a question about audiology. The Government rightly assert that they are paying a lot of attention to cutting waiting times and waiting lists, but those involve consultant-led services. The length of time that it takes to get a hearing test in a hospital, and then to have a hearing aid fitted, ranges from about six months to four years, although I have been told that it can be as much as six years. I know that the Government are proposing to introduce changes that will result in an 18-week waiting time, but is that the waiting time for the hearing test or for the hearing aid?

On the hon. Gentleman's first observation, those arrangements are clearly designed to allow the use of some very simple and straightforward Post Office accounts at a local post office for those people who, so far, have relied on the Post Office card account. The pilots to which I referred are designed to allow people to use that facility until 2010, so this is not an overnight change; it will be signposted well in advance. Many of the Post Office accounts are simple, straightforward and easy to use; they are no more complex than the card account. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support this process.

On audiology, I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I will ask her to write to him directly about it. It is obviously important to the Government to ensure that waiting lists come down right across the range of services and facilities offered by the national health service. The Government have had remarkable success in reducing those waiting lists, and we want to ensure that that affects every part of the health service.

We shall have a free vote on next Wednesday's business on allowances for Sinn Fein, so I shall have to think for myself. Will the Leader of the House kindly help me by clarifying one or two points? As I understand it, one of the resolutions before us will not only restore the allowances that were taken away but give a new, additional allowance exclusively to Sinn Fein, which will be better than the Short money that the Conservatives and the Liberals get. Resolution 45 uses the words

"in relation to the party's representative business."

That is much more widely drawn than the definition given to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) in recent replies to questions about Short money. This will be Hain money—or Sinn Hain money, if you like. It will be a new allowance, and I am not persuaded that it can be justified by any of the criteria that have been laid down for the receipt of Short money.

I have always defended my hon. Friend's right to think for himself, even if the consequences have sometimes been difficult for some of my right hon. Friends. I am not going to have the debate now that I have set for next Wednesday. The House will have the opportunity on that day to discuss the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, and then to decide, on a free vote—it is a House matter—whether the allowances should be restored or granted.

Continuing with the subject of Wednesday's business, is it true that the Leader of the House wants to curtail the time spent discussing the allowances to Sinn Fein because a Labour bash is being held somewhere else in the precincts of the House at the time? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove that business entirely from Wednesday's schedule, on the basis of the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and me last week, which was that he could not justify such payments if the IRA was continuing with its criminality?

Again, I shall not get into the substance of that debate now. I am not aware of any Labour bash taking place on Wednesday evening—[Interruption.]—although a photograph is to be taken at the end of business on that day. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the normal timetable for Wednesdays, there will be plenty of time available to debate these issues. I look forward to all the parliamentary Labour party participating in the debate, because I am sure that they will want to be in the centenary photograph that will be taken that evening. As far as the debates are concerned, there will be ample time for the House to discuss these important issues.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of my early-day motion 1421.

[That this House believes that the Scottish Parliament should follow the lead of the Welsh Assembly and introduce guidelines for all political parties that ensure that candidates for election cannot stand for both the list and the constituency.]

The motion now has the support of nearly 90 hon. Members and many other people. Will my right hon. Friend set aside some time for a debate on this issue? It was discussed in another place yesterday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that losers should not be winners, and that they certainly cannot be leaders?

I know that this is an important issue north of the border and, if I can put it this way, west of the border. The matter has been debated in another place, and it is important that this House should have the opportunity to consider it. I am sure that that will be the case in due course.

On reflection, does the Leader of the House think that he was entirely fair to the Liberal Democrat spokesman when he accused him of carping? Surely the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was right to point out the complete lack of joined-up government on the important issue of climate change, with two Departments using different statistics and coming to different conclusions. May I encourage the Leader of the House to add to his modernising and innovating credentials by arranging for a joint statement to be made by those two Departments, with two Ministers at the Dispatch Box to answer our questions; otherwise, we shall not get any answers on this subject?

If it is now the position of the Conservatives to defend their poor, unfortunate colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am sure that the country will welcome the close association between two such dissimilar parties. Nevertheless, I shall stand by my use of the word "carping". What characterises both Opposition parties in this regard is their complete failure to address the issues that are relevant to resolving the problems of climate change. The Government have addressed those issues with remarkable success, both domestically and internationally. I had the opportunity this morning to listen to one of the Conservative spokesmen on the radio, who seemed to have decided that the Conservatives would resolve those problems simply by handing them over to a group of scientists. That might be one way of avoiding responsibility, but I suspect that it would not be wholly welcomed by Britain's business community.

Given the importance to the voluntary sector of the provisions in the Charities Bill, will my right hon. Friend tell us when we shall have the debate on its Second Reading?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date for that debate. This is an important matter for the Government, however, and I will ensure that the House is given early notice of the debate, as ever.

May we please have a debate on the National Offender Management Service, urgently and in Government time? The Leader of the House will know that NOMS, as it is called, covers both the Prison Service and the probation service. I was alarmed to discover from the parliamentary written answer that I received this morning—and which will no doubt appear in today's the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), that only 3 per cent. of the Prison Service budget is spent on education. Is that not an alarmingly small amount, given that 67 per cent. of prisoners reoffend within two years of their release? Surely it is high time that the Government spent more of the Prison Service budget on educating prisoners, to reduce the rate of reoffending.Hansard—from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department,

I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the importance of education, especially for young offenders, but also for the general prison population. One of the key challenges is to ensure that those who serve time in prison receive the training and education that will allow them to secure employment thereafter. The National Offender Management Service is looked at closely by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a regular basis.

Following reports in some sections of the press last week about proposals for unwarranted and wholesale demolition in housing market renewal areas, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate about pathfinder schemes? Some of us could then give credit to organisations such as Transform South Yorkshire, which have responded well and consulted properly with our constituents about some radical but constructive proposals for regeneration in those areas. It would also be a good opportunity to allay the fears raised by some of those unwarranted and inaccurate press reports.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge and experience of the way in which particular local authorities participate in partnership with the Government in improving housing stock. He is, of course, right that it is not simply a question of demolition—which has attracted a great deal of unreasonable press interest—but a question of considering our housing stock and determining what is the best way to improve it. In some cases, it is a matter of clearing land in order to allow for new build, while in others, it is a question of spending significant amounts of money on revitalising existing houses and making sure that they are fit for the 21st century.

To echo Members who have spoken previously, may we please have a statement on the disgraceful decision of the Department for Work and Pensions to abolish the Post Office card account? May we also have a debate and a vote on that? Surely, in view of the number of signatures on the early-day motion, the Government cannot abolish the card account without a vote in Parliament. May we also have a debate on the implications for small post offices? The Royal Mail's universal service obligation gives little protection to rural post offices. For example, within the PA postcode area, the Royal Mail could shut every post office on every island in my constituency and still conform to the terms of the USO. That is completely unacceptable, and surely it must be altered.

I have made it clear to the House that this issue is still under discussion. The Post Office card account was always intended to be a transitional arrangement, and there are other ways of solving the problem. Part of the issue is ensuring that local rural post offices continue to be available to the communities that they serve so well, and that is at the forefront of the Government's mind. After all, that was why the card was introduced in the first place. We are not about to abandon the success of the card—we want to ensure that it continues, but in an appropriate way.

Will my right hon. Friend find some time, rather urgently, to allow the Department of Trade and Industry to explain to the House why it is spending money and resources on a cost-benefit analysis of the possible extension of Sunday trading? Such a move is not wanted by the majority of supermarkets, employees or the public, and, judging by my early-day motion, might not secure the support of the House. Would it not have been better for the DTI to secure the support of the House in principle before expending that money, which could have been better spent on combating the erosion of British manufacturing jobs?

Without challenging in any way the assumptions underlying my hon. Friend's question, it is important that we identify whether there is a demand from the public, supermarkets or other shops for a different arrangement for Sunday trading. I would have thought, given the premise of his question, that he welcomed the expenditure in order to identify more accurately the position on Sunday trading.

The European Union will shortly embark on a review of the European wine industry. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that Britain's embryonic wine industry is well protected in that review?

I shall treat that as an application to join in the test. Certainly, the review is important to this growing UK industry. Having had the opportunity of sampling English wine at a number of recent Foreign Office dinners, I recognise the great contribution that that industry is beginning to make.

While I am pleased with the Leader of the House's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), I would be absolutely delighted if he could be a little more forthcoming about a debate on the Arbuthnott report. He will be aware, now that he is fully briefed, that the report raises many issues. It is worrying that, on something as simple as Scottish parliamentary and Westminster constituencies having coterminous boundaries, the commission does not appreciate the need for urgency. Surely the public deserve better than that. I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand that there is a more urgent need for a debate.

I have reflected on several occasions that one of the joys of this job is that one learns ever more about the variety of issues affecting government right across the United Kingdom, if I can put it in that way. I recognise the concern, and I have already said that it has been discussed in another place. Having spent some considerable time studying the wide variety of forms of proportional representation, I understand some of the technicalities involved and recognise the concerns that arise.

Will the Leader of the House have a word with his Cabinet colleagues to try to persuade them to stop the increasing trend for named day written questions to receive holding answers?

I recognise that that is of grave concern to right hon. and hon. Members. It is important that answers are given as early as is possible, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members will accept that it is also important that Departments have the opportunity to produce accurate and detailed responses to such questions. From time to time, that necessitates the issuing of a holding answer. All Departments are made aware that the mechanism should be used only in specific and particular circumstances.

Last week, the Government published the terms of reference for the energy review, which is due to be published before the summer recess, by which time the report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will also have been finalised and the climate change review should have been completed. The Stern report on the economic implications of climate change, however, will not be published until the autumn. Will the Leader of the House accept that it would be more sensible if the Stern report were available before final decisions are taken on the energy review? Can he find time for a debate on the subject in the near future so that all those issues can be discussed?

I have had cause to reflect on previous occasions on my hon. Friend's expertise and knowledge in this area. I recognise that, consistent with the kinds of questions that I have been asked already today, climate change is not an issue on its own. It has significant implications across the board, not least economic ones, and the Government take those seriously in relation to often difficult decisions and judgments. Certainly, I recognise the importance of taking account of the economic consequences of climate change.

Given the mounting concerns expressed at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, DEFRA questions today and in an early-day motion about the proposed cuts relating to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which has sites across the country including an important one in Dorset, does the Leader of the House share my concerns about the potential long-term implications for the United Kingdom's science assets and scientific base? Does he feel that there should be some parliamentary input into the consultation? There is a real danger that a decision could be taken without any democratic input.

This issue has now been raised twice in two days. The hon. Lady cannot say that there has not been some democratic input, given the questions raised not only with me but with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Government are committed to improving the United Kingdom's science base, into which we have put a great deal of extra resources. We have encouraged the development of science in the UK because we recognise that that is important not only in terms of understanding the implications of policy for the future in areas such as climate change but as a vital contribution to our future economic fortunes.

Student debt is a persistent and growing problem, and nowhere is that more true than in nursing and midwifery, which has a high attrition rate of almost a quarter because of financial problems. Early-day motion 197, tabled by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) following a campaign by the Royal College of Midwives, drew attention to that, and called for a non-means-tested £10,000 bursary.

[That this House recognises the vital role that midwives play in the NHS; notes that many student midwives face financial problems during their training and that according to the Royal College of Midwives' poll, around a fifth of midwives fail to complete their studies due to financial hardship; and therefore supports the RCM campaign to provide a £10,000 non-means tested bursary for all student midwives, ensuring more students are attracted to midwifery, are able to complete their course and go on to become practising midwives.]

My constituent Andrea Simpson of Donington le Heath has compiled a very large petition online, which I hope to present to the House next week. Will the Leader of the House try to find an opportunity in the coming weeks for us to discuss that important aspect of finance for vocational training? People such as my constituent are key to the provision of quality services in the NHS and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. No one underestimates the importance of vocational training and of ensuring that students engaged in such courses have proper financial support. I hope that if my hon. Friend looks at the statistics relating to those who have undertaken such courses, and the increasing number available to the NHS in the context that he cited, he will accept that the position is not as bleak as his question implied; but obviously we keep it under review. We have a strong commitment to vocational training, which not only benefits parts of the NHS but makes a vital contribution to our wider economy.

May we have a debate about current trends in the Scottish economy, so that we can discuss the complacent and arrogant attitude of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence? Last week 720 jobs were lost at Lexmark in west Fife, following the loss of 1,600 jobs at Rosyth dockyard, in the same constituency. As if that were not bad enough, 7,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Fife alone. Given that appalling record, it is any surprise that people are turning away from Labour in droves, forgoing their complicit Scottish Executive buddies in the Liberal party and turning to the Scottish National party?

No doubt the raising of that issue here has saved the Scottish National party a certain amount of money for its campaign in Dunfermline, but I am confident that it will result in the election of another Labour Member of Parliament to continue the excellent work of the former Member, Rachel Squire. She was a friend of mine and a remarkable Member of Parliament, and I regret her loss.

The economy of the United Kingdom and that of Scotland have, in fact, never been stronger. I should be intrigued to know—I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to tell me now, but perhaps he would like to write to me—exactly what prescriptions the Scottish National party would set out for the economy of Scotland. The economy of Scotland is doing extremely well under a Labour Government, and while obviously we regret job losses—particularly on the scale that we have seen recently—one of the remarkable features of the current economy is that those who are losing employment have an opportunity, for the first time in more than a generation, to secure alternative employment. The Government have invested an enormous amount of resources in ensuring that they are given appropriate training and education so that that can happen.

Do the Leader of the House and the Government agree that the reporting of Iran to the United Nations Security Council is a very serious matter, reflecting a grave international crisis that is preoccupying every major power on this earth? I realise that we are to have a defence debate this afternoon, but a 12-minute limit on speeches has been imposed, and the debate is meant to be about procurement, not just about Iran. Would it not be sensible for the Government to hold a full day's debate on Iran, so that the House can be fully informed about where this development is leading our own Government?

The Government have serious concerns about Iran's policies, and not least about such aspects as its nuclear and ballistic missile programme. That is why we have engaged with other members of the EU3, why we have taken up the issue internationally, and why we continue to regard developments in Iran with great concern. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and will consider the possibility of a debate in due course.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

I have today laid before Parliament Lord Carlile of Berriew's report on the operation of the control order regime under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and an order to extend the life of that Act for a further 12 months. I am very grateful to Lord Carlile—as I am sure the whole House will be—for the customary diligence and care with which he approached his task.

Overall, I believe that the report endorses the current operation of the control order system. Paragraph 61 states:

"As a last resort (only), in my view the control order system as operated currently in its non-derogating form is a justifiable and proportional safety valve for the proper protection of civil society."

Lord Carlile also states, in paragraph 38, that in the 18 cases in which control orders have been made,

"I would have reached the same decision as the Secretary of State in each case in which a control order has been made."

Lord Carlile has made a number of recommendations to improve the operation of the control order regime, including the monitoring of each case to ensure that the restrictions imposed are the minimum necessary consistent with the safety of the public, and fuller information from the police about why they believe it would not be possible to mount a prosecution rather than relying on a control order. I have considered each of Lord Carlile's recommendations, and in principle I accept them. I am currently consulting, as required by the Act, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service, and will take their views into account before making final decisions, on which I will report to the House during the debates on the renewal order. No recommendation made by Lord Carlile requires primary legislation, and it is on that basis that I have laid the renewal order today. It will be fully debated in both Houses, and all Members will have an opportunity to debate Lord Carlile's report and our response to it. Of course I hope that the order will be supported.

The last stage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was a significant parliamentary occasion that all members of this House will remember well. During that debate, I made a commitment to timetable further counter-terrorism legislation for spring this year, so that Lord Carlile's report would be available to inform the House when it considered any amendments to the control order legislation. I gave that commitment in the context of an announcement I had already made that we would introduce legislation to give effect to new offences of terrorism. The House will know that the tragic events of 7 July changed the timetable for the introduction of that legislation. With the agreement of all parties, we decoupled that legislation from further parliamentary consideration of control orders and presented it in October, in the Terrorism Bill that is currently before Parliament. In July, I said that I would return to the issue of control orders in the spring.

On receiving Lord Carlile's report, I was left to consider the merits of introducing a Bill that would have little content, but would enable hon. Members to table amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In doing so, I noted the following points.

First, Lord Carlile's report emphasises that there has not yet been a complete cycle of control orders, in that legal challenges brought by those who have been the subject of control orders have not yet been completed and therefore tested in the courts. I think that final conclusions on the operation of the whole control order regime would therefore be premature.

Secondly, there are three very important pieces of work that are being done this year, which I want to be able to take into account before presenting legislation on counter-terrorism. The first is Lord Carlile's review of the legislative definition of terrorism, which was promised during the passage of the Terrorism Bill and has been a significant part of the debate in both Houses of Parliament. The second is his report on the operation of the current Terrorism Bill, once passed, and in particular the measure to lengthen the period of detention without charge to 28 days, which has been the subject of great debate in both Houses. The third is the work that the Government are undertaking to find, if possible, a legal model that would provide the necessary safeguards to allow intercept material to be used as evidence. That has been raised in many parts of the House. Each of those pieces of work has been of considerable importance to Members in all parts of this House during our debates, and in my view will demand attention before we decide the details of how to proceed on terrorism legislation.

I am conscious that our terrorism legislation is now split between several different Acts of Parliament, and that the principal Act, the Terrorism Act 2000, has been subject to multiple amendments. That, as Lord Carlile among others has noted, is confusing, and I am keen to ascertain whether a way could be found of consolidating all our counter-terrorism legislation in a single, permanent Act. When I expressed that hope on Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill on 10 November 2005, the Opposition parties were good enough to say that they might be prepared to co-operate in such an endeavour.

For all those reasons, I have decided not to introduce further legislation on terrorism now, but to plan for the development of a draft Bill that takes into account all the work that I have laid out, to be published in the first half of 2007 for pre-legislative scrutiny. Depending on the outcome of that scrutiny, we will seek to introduce the legislation later that year.

It is a matter of genuine regret to me that—despite very positive discussions between the parties at the beginning of last year, following the House of Lords judgment on Belmarsh, and during the summer of last year after 7 July—any consensus reached has never held during the passage of subsequent legislation. It is unarguable that it would be better by far if the next counter-terrorism Bill had the support of all parts of the House. The timetable that I have set out offers us that opportunity and, for my part, I am determined to take it, working with the whole House.

I begin by thanking the Home Secretary for making his statement to the House today, and for his courtesy in allowing me advance sight of the documents. My saying so is not just a formality—we were given serious advance sight of those documents.

The review and renewal procedure for control orders is the consequence of the enormous battle that took place in the House of Commons before the last general election. In my judgment, it demonstrates that that debate, in which we heard brave and passionate contributions in defence of British freedoms from all parts of the House, was worth while. The Home Secretary was right to say that Lord Carlile's report is largely supportive of the Government's operation of the system, and that Lord Carlile felt that the process appeared to work. Indeed, he concluded that it was extremely rigorous, and that the Home Secretary took his personal responsibilities extremely seriously. If I may say so without embarrassing the Home Secretary, it is a reflection of his stature that not a single Member of the House will be surprised to learn that he took them seriously.

That does not mean, of course, that the control order approach can replace proper judicial process, which is why it should be kept under review, minimised and in due course replaced. It is also why, in paragraph 37 of the report, Lord Carlile supports the use of intercept evidence—the Home Secretary referred to this—to bring criminal prosecutions in as many cases as possible. Lord Carlile points out that the Terrorism Bill, which is due to return to the House shortly, will allow us to try, and in due course to convict, terrorists more easily, and to reduce even further the need for control orders. Practical factors such as resources will, in time, also help with surveillance, for example.

The report tells us that 18 control orders were issued last year, and that only one of them applies to a British citizen. I am glad to observe that that particular control order does not involve tagging or curfew, and that it allows the person in question to continue with his work. During the original debate, we expressed the worry that control orders could be destructive of people's lives.

Nine of the men in question—they are all men—have been removed from the control order system and detained pending deportation, when and if the Government obtain memorandums of understanding with the relevant Governments. This raises two key questions that are not easy to answer, but which I shall put to the Home Secretary anyway. First, how will the Government deal with any legal challenge to deportations, made under the European convention on human rights, where a memorandum of understanding is achieved? Secondly, although the report does not say so in terms, it makes it clear that it is proving quite difficult to conclude those memorandums with certain countries, which is unsurprising. What do the Government intend to do if it proves impossible to conclude them?

In paragraphs 71 and 72 of the report, Lord Carlile highlights his concerns, and those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, at the prospect of control orders being renewed time and again. He says:

"It would not be acceptable for significant restrictions on liberty to continue for years on end".

What are the Home Secretary's views on that matter?

Let me now turn to the wider issue of counter-terrorism legislation, which the Home Secretary referred to in his statement. He said that there is no requirement for primary legislation in Lord Carlile's review, but that is not quite right: paragraph 37 makes it clear that the law should be amended to allow limited use of intercept evidence. However, I accept that that will take some time to get right. I believe that the Government are right to legislate on terrorism in a more deliberate manner. Indeed, I should tell the House—I do not think that I am breaking any confidence in doing so—that the Home Secretary and I have discussed at length the use of intercept evidence. My party did not press the matter in the Lords, on the understanding that the Government would make a serious attempt to devise a robust legal model to allow the safe use of intercept material in court. I am very pleased that the Home Secretary has confirmed that intention to the House today.

I also welcome the Home Secretary's intention to rationalise terrorism legislation. This is not just a technical issue—Lord Carlile's report refers to confusion in this regard. Much anti-terrorism legislation was necessarily put together in haste and has proved unusable or unnecessary. Other such legislation appears to be being used for purposes beyond the original intention, or is being used far more than was intended. There were some 29,000 uses of the Terrorism Act 2000 last year, for example. So there is great scope for rationalisation, including some pruning of current law, and we will do what we can to facilitate that process on a consensual basis. This is an issue of enormous national interest that involves serious matters such as striking a balance between protecting the security and liberty of the subject, and protecting and preserving our values, so we will be very constructive on it.

However, let me offer a gentle comment—I will not say a rebuke—to the Home Secretary. He expressed disappointment at what he saw as a lack of consensus on the current legislation. There is a difference between a constructive, consensual approach and a supine acceptance of everything that the Prime Minister chooses to announce. We have defeated the Government on some major issues of principle, but they are just that: major issues of principle. As such, they have aroused the passionate concern of members of all the parties represented in this House, not just mine. That is as it should be, and in my judgment such concern has improved the legislation.

The result of the positive discussions that the Home Secretary alluded to has been fewer clashes—certainly fewer unnecessary clashes—than would otherwise have occurred. The Bill itself is better and more wide ranging than it would otherwise have been, and the Home Secretary will have key legislation earlier than would otherwise have been the case. After all, the timetable on which he is putting this legislation through was my suggestion, which was supported by the Liberal Democrats. So even though the outcome has not always been to his satisfaction—he is only human, so we cannot expect otherwise—it has in fact been good.

The issues arising from the proposed legislation—the definition of terrorism, the 28-day detention without trial procedure, the use of intercept evidence—are all vital and we need to get them right. I agree that we need to take a measured and thoughtful approach; that, ideally, we should proceed by way of consensus and not according to an unnecessarily hasty timetable; and that cross-party discussion would be useful. The Home Secretary will not expect me to give him a blank cheque, but I will make sure that my party does all in its power to ensure that the process that he described is effective and thorough and delivers anti-terrorism legislation that attracts the support of all parts of the House and, more importantly, really works to defend the lives and liberties of the British people.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's constructive and positive tone. I shall not talk today about the details of the control orders referred to in Lord Carlile's report; we will have a chance to debate them when the renewal order is in place. I should re-emphasise the Government's view that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, proper judicial process—going through courts, and for convictions—is the right way to address these matters wherever possible, rather than using measures such as control orders. He is also right to say that under the legislation currently before Parliament, the number of cases in which there is a prospect of securing a conviction through the courts will increase; I hope that it will have the impact that he describes. For the avoidance of doubt, I should confirm our approach throughout this process: we are introducing a regime that will apply only to a very narrow set of cases—we hope that it will become narrower—in which prosecution through the courts in the normal way cannot work.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how we will deal with deportation cases in the light of court judgments. I am not going to predict how we will deal with such situations, but we have been able to secure memorandums of understanding with a number of countries, and the Foreign Secretary and I continue actively to discuss with other countries the securing of such memorandums. I hope that the courts will regard those memorandums as serious agreements between sovereign Governments in such circumstances. But of course, the courts will have to judge the nature of the memorandum of understanding with a particular country, and its operation in relation to a particular case. Therefore, I am not going to speculate about how that will be dealt with.

On intercept, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is right to say that hon. Members in his party and others, and many Labour Members, have wanted to explore whether we can do better than is currently the case. I can confirm what I have told him in private, which is that the Government are looking at that very actively and seriously, with a view to seeing how we can introduce an appropriate regime. A report on that will be produced later in the year. If progress is made in that regard, I can confirm that legislative change along the lines suggested by Lord Carlile would be appropriate.

Whether his remarks amount to a gentle comment or a rebuke, the very cordial and consensual relations that I have had with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden in discussing some of these matters have not always been evident in debates in the House. I blame my own conduct for that, of course, but he may care to look at his own approach in that regard. [Laughter.] However, I do appreciate his determination to play a constructive role in rationalising the legislation. As he says, it could certainly do with pruning and close examination. In that context, we would need to see whether the current legislation on terrorism in Northern Ireland could be brought within the framework. I repeat that I very much appreciate his constructive approach.

We are not looking for a blank cheque from the Opposition or any other Member of the House. We will not simply lay a proposal on the table and say, "Take it or leave it." We want a serious debate and a consensual approach to achieving a stable and permanent legislative regime that will tackle properly the appalling challenges that we face.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although certain differences arose in November, most hon. Members recognise the heavy responsibility that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary bears in the face of the ongoing threat of terrorism carried out by murderous fanatics? No one should underestimate the terrorist danger that our country faces. I hope that a consensus will emerge on this matter, and that the Opposition parties will play a positive role, but there needs to be greater dialogue between the Government and Parliament as a whole. If that had happened previously, some of last year's difficulties might have been avoided. However, I have confidence in what my right hon. Friend has said, and that that dialogue will take place.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, given the leading role that he played in the debate last year. I pay tribute to his continued engagement in these matters and his total commitment to fighting terrorism by whatever means are appropriate. I very much agree with him: this is a matter for all of Parliament, both Government and Opposition parties. I mentioned the possibility of pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed legislation because I think that that might offer a vehicle for progress on a consolidated basis. In that way, hon. Members of all parties, whether they have a specific or a more general interest, will be able to make a contribution to creating the new legislation. I confirm that our approach is intended to achieve consensus across the House on these matters.

May I also thank the Home Secretary for his very generous advance notice of the statement and of Lord Carlile's report? That has been of considerable assistance. I should also like to associate myself with his remarks about the composition of Lord Carlile's report. He has brought to it his customary intellectual rigour and a very sound practical approach to issues that can be complex and involved.

In respect of control orders, Lord Carlile concludes:

"In practical terms control orders have been an effective protection for national security."

That is significant, but he also observes:

"They fall not very far short of house arrest, and certainly inhibit normal life considerably",

and

"As a last resort (only), in my view, the control order system as operated currently in its non-derogating form is a justifiable and proportional safety valve for the proper protection of civil society."

In the light of that, what action will the Home Secretary take in relation to what Lord Carlile says about the use of deportation detention, as outlined in paragraphs 27 and 28? He states:

"However, I have a real concern about the detention under deportation procedures (even where bail has been granted) of persons who in practice cannot be deported at present and are unlikely to be capable of legally compliant deportation within a reasonable time."

That sounds like something dangerously close to an abuse of process.

Will the Home Secretary also ensure that Lord Carlile's conclusions in respect of letters issued by chief constables will be acted on? He observes:

"Little is given by way of reasons"

when chief constables certify that there is

"no realistic prospect of prosecution."

Finally, will the Home Secretary act on Lord Carlile's recommendation that there should be established

"a Home Office led procedure whereby officials and representatives of the control authorities meet regularly to monitor each case, with a view to advising on a continuing basis as to the necessity of the obligations imposed on each controlee"?

I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement about a new Bill that I hope will receive some pre-legislative scrutiny. I have told him already in private that I consider that to be a sensible way to proceed, although I hope that it will be possible to look again at the indicative timetable that he has proposed, as that would not allow anything to reach the statute book inside two years. Will he assure the House that the new Bill will not be used as an excuse for revisiting matters on which hon. Members have already expressed a very clear view?

Finally, I share the Home Secretary's frustration at the lack of consensus on these matters. It is clearly preferable to proceed with consensus, if that is at all possible. I fear that the fault is shared by all parties, and I hope that he will ensure that his words are heard in No. 10 Downing street.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach and the stance that he has adopted. As I said in my statement, in principle I accept each of Lord Carlile's recommendations to which he referred—on Home Office procedures, deportation processes and so on. I am required—and wish—to consult the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service, but I hope that not too many weeks pass before we debate the renewal order. I shall then set out to the House my detailed and final decision, following that consultation, on Lord Carlile's recommendations.

I very much welcome the constructive approach adopted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) in respect of the timetable for the new Bill. I can tell the House that his predecessor in the post took the same approach. I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman said about the indicative timetable, but I am determined that the new Bill takes full account of all the pieces of work to which I referred. The timetable will therefore not be based on indolence on the part of Parliament or the House, but on the fact that proper account must be taken of how the regime has worked, the comments that are made about it, and other specific pieces of work that must be developed.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned revisiting issues. Parliament has a tradition of doing that in a variety of ways. I cannot guarantee that no issues will be revisited, by me or another Labour Member. I am not sure that I can ask him for a guarantee that his party will not revisit any issues—I am thinking about its opposition to the existence of control orders in the first place—but a commitment in that regard from him could very much aid consensual progress.

My right hon. Friend said that he would consult the ISC and the director general of the Security Service. I know that these are difficult matters, but will he ask them also to prepare a report for Members of Parliament that could be placed in the Library? In addition, will he ask them to push the envelope in respect of the information that any such report can contain? In these circumstances, the more information that hon. Members have the better, especially when it comes from an independent and neutral source, although I recognise the difficulties that our security services encounter in making such information available.

I very much appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend puts his very appropriate question. It is right that we need to share information as much as we can, with Parliament and with society more widely, although my hon. Friend clearly accepts that there are serious constraints on how we do that. There are various procedures that we can follow to make that information available—through the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs and other Select Committees—but I will ensure that we talk to the security services in general about how we can share the information more widely without threatening the country's security in any direct way. I accept without qualification his fundamental point, which is that our security will be stronger if the information is more widely shared and understood. The question is how best to do it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will set about the task with that in mind.

While warmly welcoming the Home Secretary formally letting the House know today that work is being carried out on a legal model that we hope will allow for tapped evidence to be permissible in court, may I underline the fact that for many of us it is absolutely essential that we fall into line with our European allies and that this actually happens? We fully understand that it might take some time to find this legal model, but it must happen and it must be incorporated in the fresh legislation. I hope that it is a matter of when, not if.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and I reaffirm the commitment that I gave in the statement and in response to his right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) about our intentions in these matters. I should put two points for the consideration of the House. First, our legal systems are very different from the legal systems in other European countries. I notice some characteristic austere nods from his Back-Bench colleagues on that matter. We need to understand those differences, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) does better than any of us, when we think how to deal with this. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in principle, but we should accept the reality of how this is dealt with by very different legal systems.

The second issue that I always have to be aware of is the need to ensure that we do not jeopardise our ability to collect information and intelligence which is important in the national security struggle in which we are engaged. Those are my two qualifications. I again confirm that we are keen to find a solution if we can. We are working actively on this. I look forward to the House, at some point in the timetable that I have set out, considering how well or not we have achieved that.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the idea of consolidated legislation, which seems entirely right and appropriate? I welcome the intention to produce the Bill in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny. That seems entirely consistent with my right hon. Friend's approach to engage with and listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I am sure that he will be able to give me the assurance that I seek, namely that that scrutiny will be informed by Lord Carlile's thoughts and views about the definition of terrorism. It is the current definition in relation to the glorification clause that has caused many of us real problems with the current Terrorism Bill.

First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general support. Secondly, I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. The reason why—it was in response to the debate in this House—we have given Lord Carlile this commission is precisely to inform the debate that we will have. We are expecting him to report towards the end of this year. These are difficult questions. Perhaps I should remind the House that the United Nations Security Council decided last year to pass a resolution on this matter, including—dare I say it—the word "glorification" as a matter that should be outlawed. That was according to the august body of world opinion, the UN, and not just some No. 10 Downing street occupant of the moment. One of the mandates from that Security Council resolution was that during this year the convention on terrorism should be developed and a new agreed international definition of terrorism achieved. I discussed that with the UN Secretary-General. There is serious work going on in this area and there are serious difficulties. I am not sanguine about the possibility of getting such an agreement, but obviously I would want us to take account of whatever happens in the UN context. I can happily and confidently give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

May I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement with regard to the prospect of new legislation? I hope that when he refers to consolidation he uses that in the broad sense because it may well need to be a consolidation with amendments. May I suggest to him that the first priority is to protect the public from terrorism and that the question of whether or not we subscribe to the Human Rights Act 1998 is only secondary? Does he agree that the role of the judiciary under that Act sometimes appears to interfere with the first principle, the protection of the public, and that we in this Parliament should legislate on our own terms to guarantee fair trial, habeas corpus and due process for alleged terrorists, but not hand over those important decisions to the court in Strasbourg or, now that the charter of fundamental rights is coming in through the back door, to the court in Luxembourg?

I was using the word "consolidation" in a broad sense and perhaps too loosely in my statement. I can confirm that my intention is in accordance with what the hon. Gentleman is saying—that is to look at the situation in the round and get a clear position on the statute book. I cannot agree with his attacks on the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. That has been an important development in many ways. Neither can I accept that the role of the judiciary somehow stands against the protection of the public. The rule of law in this country is dependent on the independence of the judiciary and how it operates in deciding how to protect individual liberties. That being so, there are serious issues about the interpretation of the ECHR and some of the court judgments. We have asked for certain issues to be reconsidered by the court—for example, the Chahal judgment in relation to these matters. We have joined various other actions in those regards. I am not saying that there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it would be a grave mistake to set the judiciary as the opponent to the protection of the public because that is not true. It would be a grave mistake, too, to say that human rights should not be at the core of our approach. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the balancing issues are complicated and difficult and that is precisely what Parliament will have to assess when we look at the legislation.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) said: what would really reassure the public if and when the new legislation goes through Parliament would be if we could have some sort of annual report. The public would then be reassured that Parliament had taken an interest. Finally, what happened to the proposal in the press report to tap Members' telephones? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a question of confidentiality between the public and their Member of Parliament?

On my hon. Friend's final point, there are important issues at stake. The Intelligence Services Commissioner has made some recommendations and the Prime Minister is considering them and will make a statement in due course, as he has said. I understand exactly my hon. Friend's points and their importance. There is a whole series of reporting and accountability procedures in the current legislation, such as reports to the House and certain Select Committees and renewal legislation in various forms. I agree with my hon. Friend, first, that reporting procedure is important and needs to be part of this and, secondly, that it needs to be fairly consistent and straightforward to improve public understanding of the issues. When we look at the new legislation, I hope that we will get a clear system of reporting. That would be bound to include an annual report of some kind. The type of scrutiny given to that report is also relevant. It would be beneficial to get a coherent approach on all these reporting and accountability mechanisms.

What proportion of people who are giving the Government cause for concern came to this country illegally? Of those, how many would be returned if memoranda of understanding could be reached? What will we do if the courts decide to strike down those memoranda of understanding?

I do not have figures on the first question. The hon. Gentleman's third question contradicts his second, by which I mean that the role of the MOU and how it operates and how effective the MOU is in returning people to countries from which they have come depends entirely on the court judgment of the integrity of the MOU process. His two questions are related. I cannot require a court to agree with my decision purely because an MOU is in place. However, in a case that I make to a court, I can point to or conclude an MOU and try to operate in accordance with it. I cannot prejudge how a court will decide to interpret a particular MOU.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that experience shows, certainly over the past few years, that however much co-operation he seeks from the Opposition—even from the Liberal Democrats on a good day—the problem is that the writ does not extend to the House of Lords. On almost every single issue of this kind, that has been a stumbling block. I do not know what my right hon. Friend will do about that, but it is a problem. Finally, the biggest poser is the political question: someone's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. His point about terrorist or freedom fighter is exactly the issue that the UN is addressing, and it is why some of our hon. Friends pressed the need for a new look at the definition of terrorism in the debates on the legislation last year. It is a difficult problem, because the question for freedom fighters is how their fight for freedom is undertaken and who is brought into the firing line. I accept my hon. Friend's point and it needs to be part of the process.

On my hon. Friend's first point, he is a far more experienced parliamentarian than I am, but I regret to say that it is not simply a question of what has happened in the other place. In this House, we have seen some sharp exchanges in some debates. I never make political comments about the Lib Dems or the Conservatives—I eschew that pleasure—but I hear what my hon. Friend says and there is much substance to it. All parties would do themselves credit in front of the public if they took the issues seriously, addressed them directly and could not be accused of political point scoring.

Terrorists cannot commit their atrocities unless they are funded to do so. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the present controls over the international financing of terrorism in this country are strong enough? Does he intend to bring forward further legislation in that area and is he satisfied that we receive sufficient co-operation from the EU in those matters?

We have already made legal changes in relation to the financing of terrorism for the reason that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Of course, the question of whether those controls are adequate is something that we can address if new legislation is required. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have worked closely together to try to achieve a regime that attacks the funding sources of terrorism. I am satisfied with the co-operation of the European Union on this matter. Indeed, one of the acts during the British presidency of the EU was a resolution at the Justice and Home Affairs Council just before Christmas, which was brokered and led by Britain, to reach agreement on several measures to counter terrorism, including measures on terrorist financing of the type that the hon. Gentleman describes. Of course, the question of turning all the intentions—the law, the action plans, the declarations—into a tight working relationship is always an area where more work needs to be done, and we are focusing very much on that.

I am pleased that the word "pruning" was mentioned in regard to this statement, because while we need robust legislation on terrorism, it is possible to build the walls too high and over-legislate, which affects our civil liberties and our daily lives so that the terrorist wins long after the bomb has gone off. I welcome the fact that we will be able to review the legislation.

In comparison to the victims of the 7/7 bombings, who received good compensation, the Britons who were affected by the bombings in Egypt—carried out by the same terrorist group—received no financial support. Would the Home Secretary advise the House on the Government's intentions on that point and will it be addressed in the new legislation?

Measures on compensation could be included in such legislation if that is what the House wishes. I know of the hon. Gentleman's own family losses to terrorism in relation to certain events. It is difficult to decide how far the international obligations run and what the relationship is between a compensation scheme, such as the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and the insurance principle. There has been much discussion in Government about that matter to see how we could make progress and we will set out any proposals that we have in due course. I do not think, however, that there is a simple equity between somebody who loses their life on the London underground and someone who loses their life in a terrorist atrocity in some other country, whether it be in Sharm el-Sheikh or Bali. It is a difficult issue.

On the overall approach, legislation certainly benefits from being clear, and that is one of the arguments for a codification, which would at least lead to a reduction in the quantity of words and—I hope—a gain in the clarity of the legal intent.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that I may have inadvertently misled the House on Monday. In Church Commissioners questions, I mentioned the funding of cathedrals and the fact that they are not funded by the state. I said:

"At Lichfield cathedral, the charge is voluntary, although the majority of visitors pay the recommended amount."—[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 14.]

I have now received a letter from the Venerable Chris Liley, the Archdeacon of Lichfield, saying that unfortunately that is not the case. Although the suggested payment is £4, the amount contributed by visitors is only 80p and is given by a little under half of those who come in. It would seem that people are loth to give donations, even when voluntary—

Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell me what the point of order is for the Chair.

My point of order is that I wish to set the record straight. I did not wish to mislead the House and I hope that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the people who visit Lichfield cathedral appear to be rather mean.

It certainly is not for the Deputy Speaker to agree with the hon. Gentleman on such matters, but he has now put the record straight from his point of view.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek some further advice on an important matter for my constituents. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health have stated that the maximum waiting time for NHS in-patient treatment is six months. My local hospital has just announced the cancellation of 579 operations and 2,849 out-patient appointments and has confirmed that in-patients will not be treated within six months. I tried, through parliamentary questions and letters, to clarify the situation. Can you give me any further advice?

That is not a matter directly for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must persist through the normal channels available to Members of Parliament. My suggestion would be that he apply for an Adjournment debate and make his point to the appropriate Minister in that way.

As Minister for the armed forces I have the privilege of working with and meeting our servicemen and women on a day-to-day basis and know that they are the finest in the world. The nation is fortunate to have them. In an uncertain and difficult environment, they stand ready to respond to any challenge, whether in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans or elsewhere, or assisting in civil disaster relief, such as in the aftermath of the Pakistan earthquake or the 2004 Boxing day tsunami.

As the House will be aware, following the recent deaths of Lance Corporal Allan Douglas from the 1st Battalion the Highlanders and Corporal Gordon Pritchard from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, 100 British personnel in Iraq have now lost their lives, 77 of them as a direct result of hostile action. Our thoughts go to their families, friends and loved ones at this difficult time.

As well as those who have tragically lost their lives, we should not forget those who have been injured. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear on his visit to injured service personnel, some 230 UK personnel have been treated at UK medical facilities in theatre for wounds as a result of hostile action between March 2003 and December 2005. Over the same period, some 40 UK service personnel have been categorised as "very seriously injured" as a result of injury in Iraq, whatever the cause, meaning that their life was imminently endangered. Between February 2003 and December 2005, about 4,000 military and civilian personnel were medically evacuated from theatre, the majority of whom were not casualties of hostile action. Given the focus on that issue, I assure the House that the Ministry of Defence is taking steps to ensure the accuracy of our information on casualties, which we will publish in the next few weeks.

Our care for our personnel is world-class and it will continue to be so. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the men and women of the armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere who have done, and continue to do, a tremendous job serving their country.

Despite those tragedies, we cannot let ourselves be distracted from the job to be done in Iraq, where we are acting to assist the Iraqi people and their elected representatives. We must honour our commitment to the Iraqis and we will leave once our job in Iraq is done—once the conditions for the handover of security to the Iraqis have been met and we, the Iraqi Government and our coalition partners are confident that the Iraqi security forces can operate without our support.

The UK also remains committed to the emergence of a prosperous, democratic, secure and stable Afghanistan. We have already transformed the country from a pariah state that harboured international terrorists into a functioning democracy. For the first time in 36 years Afghanistan has both a democratically elected President and Parliament.

Life for ordinary Afghan people has changed and is continuing to change for the better. More than 6 million children are back in education, a third of them girls, and many thousands of children have been immunised against serious diseases. We are seeing the staged progression and development of the ISAF—international security assistance force—mission across the whole of Afghanistan.

The south is a less benign and more complex environment, where insurgents, the drugs trade and corruption pose a greater threat to security—

Order. I take it that these are the Minister's preliminary remarks. Today's debate is specifically about procurement.

Very much so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But we have to have set our procurement strategy against the environment and theatres in which our people operate. I was setting the scene, but I shall come on to the specific issue.