May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the coming weeks?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Tuesday 2 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Wednesday 3 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Thursday 4 May—A debate on the Government's strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 8 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, followed by a motion to approve European documents relating to future European Union finances, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.

Tuesday 9 May—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 10 May—Remaining stages of the Police and Justice Bill, followed by a motion to establish a Joint Committee on Conventions of the House of Lords.

Thursday 11 May—Remaining stages of the Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill.

Friday 12 May—Private Members' Bills.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks.

The past few days have indeed proved that a week is a long time in politics. Yesterday, the usually calm and cautious members of the Royal College of Nursing barracked and heckled the Health Secretary, raising their opposition to job cuts among nurses. When we have raised job cuts among nurses and doctors in the Chamber, the Leader of the House has consistently refused our calls for a statement by the Health Secretary or a debate on the NHS. Nurses are deeply concerned about patient care, so will the Leader of the House now ensure that there will be a debate in Government time on the state of the health service?

One of the reasons for problems in the health service is the sheer incompetence of the Government. They miscalculated the cost of the new GP, nurses and consultants contracts by more than £600 million. They miscalculated the savings from legal aid, which will lead to 1,000 job losses in the courts service. Failure in the operation of working families tax credit and the new Child Support Agency system have meant that thousands of families have been left in financial difficulty. As we now know, failure by the Home Office to deport more than 1,000 foreign criminals meant that they were let out on to our streets, free to thieve, murder and rape again. May we have a full debate, in Government time, on ministerial incompetence?

May we also have a statement from the Home Secretary on rising violent crime? Not all hon. Members will know that figures published by the Home Office today, which it claims show that crime was stable in the last three months of last year, show that over that period, sex offences were up, robberies were up, drug offences were up, and violent crime was up. Are those yet more problems that the Home Secretary thinks he should have more time to put right?

May we also have a debate on the use made by the Government of reports produced by Select Committees? In recent months, we have seen warnings about the Rural Payments Agency ignored, warnings about problems in the tax credit system ignored, and warnings about the release of foreign criminals ignored. But that was not the only warning that the Home Office received about foreign criminals. It ignored Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary said on "Newsnight" that "very, very few" foreign criminals had been released after he knew about the problem. The truth was that it was 288, and the rate of release went up after he was supposed to be getting a grip on the problem. Clearly, he is not in charge of his Department and attempts by some to place the blame on civil servants merely demean the Government.

Time after time Ministers have been found wanting, and time after time they have failed to pay the price. May we have a debate on ministerial accountability, which will give this House the opportunity to say to this Government, "Enough is enough"?

The right hon. Lady has some interesting definitions of what she means by job cuts. [Interruption.] I know that it has become fashionable for Conservative Members to identify particular areas of the country where restructuring and modernisation have taken place, and then to extrapolate a general picture from those isolated examples. It is for them to check carefully exactly what they mean by job cuts, not least in relation to nurses. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us try to have an element of moderation. A chorus of sedentary comments is not helpful.

The simple facts are that 85,000 more nurses are now working in the United Kingdom than there were in 1997; we now have 404,161 nurses at work; and we have 307,000 more staff in the national health service than we had in 1997, including 215,000 more front-line staff. On whatever definition anyone uses, those are not job cuts. They may be things that Conservative Members want to use in debate, but the plain fact of the matter is that more and more people are working in our national health service, and they are delivering more and more treatment, more and more operations, ever-better standards of health care and ever-lower waiting lists. Those are the facts.

Perhaps the right hon. Lady has not had time to read the pages of The Times this morning, but she will see in it a letter in which it is said:

"The NHS will need to respond to the tide of rising expectations and need by improving efficiency and responsiveness. With the dedication and commitment of staff we believe that the NHS can continue its transformation and be a model for other countries."

That letter is signed by, among others, Beverly Malone, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, and the chairman of the British Medical Association, together with representatives of unions and charities that work in the NHS. We are doing exactly what is set out by those people with real experience of a national health service.

On tax credits, nine out of 10 low-income families with children are claiming tax credits. Tax credits are transforming the life chances of the poorest people in our society, which the Conservative Government did not care about and did not concern themselves with. We saw an appalling level of family poverty and child poverty during that period. We have lifted 700,000 children out of poverty—a policy that the Conservative party has consistently opposed.

On foreign prisoners and deportation, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the position in a written statement to the House, he made an oral statement in the House, and he made it clear yesterday that he would return to the House as necessary to ensure that that regrettable state of affairs is addressed—a state of affairs that the Government have addressed, and which had not previously been addressed by any other Government. That is a matter to which the right hon. Lady might give some consideration. No previous Home Secretary was in a position to provide the information because no previous Home Secretary had the records and information available to him. Again, the Conservatives ought to reflect on that before making such criticisms.

On crime, overall we have seen a significant reduction in key crime statistics over the longer term. The statistics from the British crime survey showed that in the 12 months to September 2005 overall crime was falling, the level of violent crime was relatively stable, all personal crime rates were relatively stable, but domestic burglary was down by 13 per cent. and vehicle thefts were down by 14 per cent. That is an improvement. It is not sufficient; we want still greater progress.

Again, that improvement is hardly helped by the Conservative party's consistent policy of opposing the very policies that we have proposed to make that happen, opposing greater numbers of police officers on the streets—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."]—opposing greater support for those police officers. Opposition Members cry rubbish but the truth is that they have consistently opposed providing the resources to allow those changes to occur. They cannot consistently complain in the House when they have opposed the very resources that allowed those policies to be implemented.

The Conservative Government had their black Wednesday. Yesterday we had the triple whammy Wednesday for the present Government, and the Leader of the House has just displayed the complacency for which he is well known.

We need a debate on the health service. Last week the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a national debate that would go on for weeks and weeks. We saw that national debate exhibited at the conference of the Royal College of Nursing. It is insulting to those nurses to say that they do not understand what job cuts in the nursing service are, when it is they who are losing their jobs and they who work in the wards that are being closed. We need a debate on the health service.

On the Home Office, can the Leader of the House explain some simple procedure to me? In his oral statement yesterday, the Home Secretary said:

"I can confirm that consideration of the most serious cases has, of course, commenced and I will report further on progress by the end of this week."—[Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 573.]

We are not sitting tomorrow. There has been no written statement today. I have had no indication of an oral statement later today. How will the Home Secretary report on the murderers, arsonists, rapists and drug dealers whom he has let out, while lecturing the rest of the country about law and order? When will we have that information?

Lastly, may we have a debate on ministerial responsibility, perhaps with reference to Sir Thomas Dugdale and the Crichel Down affair? Some of us do not believe that ministerial responsibility consists of lamely promising to put things right after the event, but rather taking responsibility for things that go wrong and accepting the consequences of failure.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to describe my observations as "complacent". I realise that the Liberal Democrats do not like facts, and I have consistently set out the facts to the House on the health service and tackling crime. The Government have consistently not only set out clear policies, but made the resources available, but the Liberal Democrats cannot say with any conviction or confidence that they would have taken the same course. I am happy that there should be debates on the health service and am delighted that there should be debates on tackling crime, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss those matters in due course. This Government are not afraid of debating and discussing the significant improvements that we have made in British society since 1997.

As far as ministerial responsibility and the Crichel Down case are concerned, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who is sitting behind him and who used to lecture on constitutional law at Cambridge university, because he will find that the situation on the Crichel Down case and ministerial responsibility is not quite how he represented it. I do not believe that there is any necessity for those matters to be debated on the Floor of this House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he will keep the House informed of the facts as and when they are clearly established. Again, it is important that we all get our facts right, which is something that has escaped the Liberal Democrats in the past 24 hours.

Will this House have an opportunity to look at the review of sentencing for domestic violence offenders? Many victims of domestic violence will have heard expressions of remorse 34 times before the offender is finally brought to some form of justice. Although it is important to make sure that offenders learn how to manage conflict without resorting to violence, is it not also important that the victims of domestic violence are sure that they will be taken seriously when they report such crimes and that their families will be safe from any further violence in the future?

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence in all its forms, and we have passed legislation to that end. One reason why legislation has been introduced is to ensure an improvement in reporting rates. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is an independent body and it is important for hon. Members—including, I hope, my hon. Friend—who take an interest in that matter to assist in its work by contributing to the consultation on guidelines for sentencing in relation to domestic violence offences. The deadline for contributions is 12 June, and I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

During the Home Secretary's all-too-brief statement yesterday, he promised to keep the House informed, by the end of this week, about developments on where those foreign murderers, rapists and paedophiles have gone. Since then, it has come to light that there are far more foreign prisoners in our jails than was previously realised. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the Home Secretary, or probably his successor, will come to the Dispatch Box on Tuesday, when the House returns, and make a further statement?

As I have said, as and when the facts are clearly established, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House.

The Home Secretary said that he would do so by the end of this week.

The right hon. Gentleman is asking whether that means by the end of this week.

That is when the Home Secretary said that he would report to the House.

That is what my right hon. Friend said, and it is important that he should see it through. I am sure that Opposition Members who have a genuine interest in the facts of the case recognise that it is important that a Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box should have all the facts in order to inform the House. That is my right hon. Friend's position, which is right and which he has made clear to this House.

As the Leader of the House will know, the Home Secretary has announced that there will be a cap on compensation for miscarriages of justice. He will also know that I have introduced a Bill to amend section 133(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to give persons who have suffered a miscarriage of justice the opportunity to appeal against the decision of the assessor. Does he agree that as we are to have a cap, it is important that there should be that right of appeal once an assessment is made? May we have a debate on that important matter?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Let me emphasise that a process of judicial review is already available to those who are dissatisfied with the level of compensation. I anticipate that that is an appropriate way of dealing with any challenge to the level of compensation, and I would urge him to consider it as an appropriate way forward.

Will the Leader of the House find time to debate attempts by Liberal Democrat councillors in Wokingham to exclude children from Reading from schools in their district, despite the fact that Bulmershe, Maiden Erlegh and Ryeish Green schools have catchment areas that are well across the borough boundaries? Does he agree that Lib Dem councillors who are saying, "Wokingham schools for Wokingham children", are in clear breach of the Greenwich judgment, which has served us well for many years?

I am certainly familiar with the Greenwich judgment, and it is important that it is followed by councillors all over the country. I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a debate sooner than a week today, which I anticipate was in his mind. Nevertheless, it is important that all councils should respect the important decisions of the law in this regard.

May we please have a debate on the Floor of the House, in Government time, on the egregious abuse of human rights in Burma? In a week when Charm Tong, a courageous 24-year-old who is the founder of the Shan women's action network, is in the United Kingdom to highlight the use of rape as a weapon of war in her country, is it not time that we had the first ever statement or debate on the Floor of the House about the action that the Government will take in international forums to force the Government of Burma to stop killing, maiming and torturing its citizens and to start respecting and honouring them?

We had Foreign Office questions only this week, and I am sure that had the hon. Gentleman been able to raise that issue he would have done so with equal clarity. I cannot promise him an early debate, but I can say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary keeps the very disturbing situation in Burma under constant review. It is an important subject for the Foreign Office, and the British Government use their influence to try to improve what is, as I say, a very disturbing situation.

May I put it to the Leader of the House that we really should have a debate on ministerial responsibility? He will know that in the past six weeks there have been dramatic examples of culpable ministerial negligence. There is the failure of the Rural Payments Agency, for which Lord Bach and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are personally responsible; and then there are the mistakes and errors of the Home Secretary. All three say that they take responsibility, but there is no accountability unless there is resignation. This House demands the resignation of those three Ministers.

I am puzzled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view of proper process. He appears to assume that Ministers are guilty before charge, never mind after charge having followed a process. In the light of his comments, I cannot quite see the purpose of a debate.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the Floor of the House on the future of the Post Office card? He will be aware of early-day motion 1531, which has 314 signatures from Members across Parliament.

[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 in that, 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.]

This is an important issue at the grass roots of this country, and people are very concerned. Will he speak to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions, which are dealing with it? There is no joined-up thinking, and it is important that we should have a debate here as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise that issue at business questions. Let me repeat what I have said before—it has always been the Government's ambition to ensure that the Post Office card continues for as long as necessary to allow those who use it, and do so successfully, to be able to transfer from that scheme to an arrangement whereby they can continue to receive benefits through the Post Office service. That means that the post office network is in no way threatened by the change, but ensures that people get a better standard of service, as well as returns on their savings such as interest that can be paid through other accounts. The Government entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the future of the post office network, which is important to us and to its many users around the country. However, I urge her to look carefully at the way in which we propose to deal with the card and the alternatives available for people thereafter.

Perhaps I should first put on the record that I never lectured in constitutional law, but I did lecture in employment law, which might be more relevant to the fate of the Ministers concerned. [Laughter.]

May we have a debate on nuclear waste? The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is reporting today, but its remit covered only waste from existing nuclear power stations, not waste from future-build nuclear power stations, which according to the Environmental Audit Committee will produce 400 per cent. more high-level waste than previous nuclear power stations. The Committee is anxious that its report is not misrepresented as solving the nuclear waste problem for the future. I am sure that a debate would help to clarify that.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for—

Misrepresenting him.

I was going to say extending the range of his competencies. As an employment lawyer, he will clearly be familiar with such matters, so I will avoid misdescribing his abilities in future.

On waste disposal and nuclear power, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Government have undertaken an extensive review of this country's energy requirements and the ways in which we might fulfil them. That consultation period concluded on 14 April. The Government are considering those representations carefully, and will of course inform the House of their conclusions in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of concern, certainly on Labour Benches, about the Government reverting to the pre-1997 practice whereby Parliament is virtually shut down for nearly three months? While it is true that constituency and casework is undertaken, at least by most of us, we are not allowed to do our main job. Does any Parliament in a democracy shut down for such a long period; and what justification can there be for reverting to the old practices?

This Parliament probably sits for more weeks in the year than almost any other that I am familiar with. That is the short answer to my hon. Friend's question. For those who want to spend still more time here, I recognise, as I have told the House before, that it is important to consider ways of improving the arrangements during the summer recess, not least to try to bring Members back to the House as early as possible. One of the practical problems has been the timing and organisation of party conferences. I have discussed with each of the main political parties the possibility of bringing those forward to allow the House to sit promptly thereafter, and I hope that they will consider that carefully.

Is the Leader of the House aware that, sadly, Hertfordshire fire and rescue services are about to hold a strike? There is a dispute between the excellent firefighters in Hertfordshire and their employers. The chief fire officer naturally asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that military cover be supplied should the strike go ahead. A Minister told me yesterday that it had been refused. No request went to the Ministry of Defence for military cover—81 military people were required. It would be the first time in this country that no military cover was provided in the event of a firefighters' strike. That would put my constituents' lives at risk. Will a Minister come to the House to explain why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not request the firefighters that we need?

The hon. Gentleman speaks from considerable knowledge and experience. Without going into detail about the specific dispute, I hope that he will use his good offices to find ways to avoid the strike. No benefit can follow to any part of our society from it, and I hope that he will join me in urging those who call for such a strike to call it off.

Will my right hon. Friend mark and celebrate with a debate nurses day, which is on 12 May this year? I do not believe that all nurses would want to associate themselves with the behaviour of the Royal College of Nursing at its conference yesterday. When a woman stands in front of a bulk of women and is harangued in such a way, it does a disservice to nurses and women. I wish that the RCN had been as passionate in supporting low paid manual workers when the Conservative party decimated their jobs.

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience of the nursing profession and I shall not try to match her expertise. As I have already said, the Government take seriously the tremendous contribution that nurses make. We have supported them by massively increasing the number of nurses in the national health service and substantially increasing their real income. A newly qualified nurse will now earn £19,166—a 25.6 per cent. real terms increase since 1997. We have backed our commitment to the NHS and nursing both in the rewards to individual nurses and in the number of nurses who currently practise.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House at an early opportunity to explain the policy behind the Identity Cards Act 2006? Last weekend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said that identity cards would carry health information about individuals. Last October, the Home Secretary expressly said that they would not. Indeed, throughout our discussions on the measure, from after the general election to Royal Assent, the Government's case was that health information would not be carried on identity cards or on the national identity register. It appears that the Home Office is having a little local difficulty, and the Home Secretary needs to come here and sort himself out.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has spent a great deal of time at the Dispatch Box in the most recent Session. When we consider the Bills that the Government plan to introduce, the Home Office is prominent in its contribution to legislation. We debated the important identity cards measure at great length on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I anticipate that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise further issues with my right hon. Friend at the next Home Office Question Time.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the assistance available to people who are made redundant? I previously raised with him the 700 workers at Outokumpu steel works in my constituency who were made redundant. As a result of his good offices and those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a rapid response programme was set up. However, contrary to the advice that officials are giving Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, the information that I receive from constituents and Gary Gordon, the Transport and General Workers union representative at Outokumpu, is that many people in genuine need are being refused assistance for retraining and, when assistance has been offered, the response is often far from rapid. Those matters are important and I hope that my right hon. Friend will arrange for early consideration of them.

My hon. Friend has assiduously raised the interests of that specific group of workers and I recognise the concern that he properly expresses. I am disappointed to learn that the rapid response programme, which has generally been a successful Government initiative to assist those who face unemployment or redundancy, has not appeared to work as well as it should have done in the case that he raises. I shall ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry is made aware of that.

May we have a debate soon, in Government time, on the state of the economy in Northern Ireland? Yesterday, the Prudential insurance company announced the closure of its Belfast call centre office as well as offices in Bristol and London, with a loss of 500 jobs, many of them to India. In 2002, Prudential signed an agreement with the union that stipulated that no compulsory redundancies would be made at the firm as a result of offshoring. That deal ran out in February and there are concerns that the company deliberately waited until now so that it would not be held to it. It is a serious matter for the many workers involved and I hope that the Leader of the House can draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those important issues. No one underestimates the anxiety and the effect of such difficult decisions on those who are at risk of losing their jobs. I emphasise the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that the Government have put in place a series of measures to assist those who are at risk of losing employment, not least because of the global effects of the modern economy. People have the prospect of better training, education and financial support than in the recent past. However, the most important alternative is other employment. Again, by and large, with the 2 million extra jobs created since 1997, most people who unfortunately lost work have found alternative employment quickly through the training and support packages that the Government make available.

My right hon. Friend knows that when people lose their jobs in the private sector, and especially in manufacturing, it is hardly mentioned in the press and the Opposition do not raise an eyebrow. However, when a fraction of the jobs lost in manufacturing is lost in the public sector, it becomes a national crisis and Opposition Members get out of their prams. What opportunities exist for a collective whinge for those in the private sector who lose their jobs daily?

My hon. Friend has made his point. I am still reeling from the idea of Opposition Members in their prams. It is important to give the necessary support to provide opportunities for retraining and education to secure the jobs that will be increasingly available in the 21st century. That is not to downplay the impact of redundancies and job losses on individuals and their families. However, it is important that we continue to modernise industry and our public services to ensure that they are fit for the 21st century.

May we have an opportunity to amend the law on hosepipe bans so that those who are forbidden to use a hosepipe to water a small garden are not disadvantaged compared with those who want to use one to fill a large swimming pool, which is perfectly legal, and so that those who want to use a hosepipe to clean a small car are not disadvantaged when compared with those who wish to use one to clean a large commercial vehicle, which is also perfectly legal?

My constituents have not so far experienced the difficulty of filling their swimming pools, so that has not been raised with me. I acknowledge that it may be a problem for a small minority. However, there should be fairness and consistency in the operation of rules—that was the substance of the hon. Gentleman's point—and I assure him that I will get the relevant Minister to write to him along those lines.

My right hon. Friend will doubtless know that the Competition Commission has today confirmed that the home credit industry—the doorstep lenders—has been overcharging its customers by tens of millions of pounds, as many of us have said for some time. Will he join me in calling on doorstep lenders not to contest those findings and waste time on months of argument but to cut their charges now? If they do not, will he ask his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to use their powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to introduce the necessary legislation to make them cut their charges now rather than years in the future?

I have not seen the report that my hon. Friend mentions, but we all recognise the risks of making decisions on the doorstep about loans and borrowing. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I assure him that it will be passed to the relevant Minister.

The Leader of the House will know that it has been reported this morning that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is to recommend the deep storage of nuclear waste in as yet unspecified sites. CoRWM also said that it could take many decades to prepare the sites. This news will cause great anxiety in the communities in Scotland that featured on the last Nirex list. They opposed plans for waste dumps in the past and will continue to do so. Does this not underline the need for an urgent debate on the disposal of nuclear waste, and on the implications of the Government's inexplicable obsession with new nuclear power stations?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to alarm any of those communities by referring to them in the way that he just did. I urge him not to take such a course of action. It is important that we have a thorough review of energy requirements, as I said in answer to an earlier question. That necessarily involves consideration of the disposal and storage of nuclear waste, and that will be part of the Government's consideration of the country's future energy requirements.

Our Government have a really good record on animal welfare, as illustrated by the legislation that we passed during our nine years in government. However, the one area that remains unaddressed is that of animals in the laboratory. Animal tests are the weakest link in the safety testing of new drugs; they are so poorly predictive for humans that 92 per cent. of candidate drugs fail in clinical trials, their having had success with animals. Does the Leader of the House have any idea whether the Government will respond to early-day motion 92, which has been signed by hundreds of people across the Chamber? It states:

[That this House, in common with Europeans for Medical Progress, expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is concerned that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments, and has no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per cent. of general practitioners in a recent survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research.]

If no such evaluation is to be forthcoming, may we have a debate on this most important subject?

My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an important issue, and I am grateful for his observations about the Government's record on animal welfare. We are proud of the steps that we have taken to continue to protect animals. Equally, it is important that this country is able to go on engaging in scientific research, while ensuring that that research is effective and efficient. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must balance the need for effective scientific research against the protection and welfare of animals, and I assure him that we keep that balance under constant review.

The Leader of the House will recall the cutting of the frigate and destroyer fleet from 35 in 1997 to only 25 now, and the cutting of the replacement Type 45 programme from 12 vessels to only eight. Bearing in mind the report in The Herald today that there will be only six ships, rather than eight, despite the statement by the First Sea Lord that it was absolutely essential to have eight, may we have an urgent statement by a defence Minister on whether this cut is going to take place? If that statement is to be made, should it not be made before, rather than just after, the local government elections?

Unfortunately, in my many years as Secretary of State for Defence—during which the hon. Gentleman was assiduous in asking me questions—I never managed to persuade him that the number of ships is not the critical factor. I know that he is fascinated by naval history, and he will know that the Royal Navy had thousands of ships in the late 19th century. That number was subsequently reduced to hundreds, and it is now much smaller. To that extent, there have been cuts. All I can say to him is that the ships that we have now are enormously more capable, and that the judgment on numbers is made in relation to the capabilities that the United Kingdom Royal Navy requires. That is a consistent process. It has not simply taken place since 1997; it has been going on for 400 or 500 years.

Will my right hon. Friend bring a report to the House on my constituent, Michael Shields, who is serving a 15-year jail sentence in Bulgaria for a crime to which another man has confessed? Michael Shields' final appeal was heard in the Cassation Court in Bulgaria on 21 March. Michael Shields, his lawyers and the Foreign Office were informed that the court's verdict would be received within 30 days. The 30 days elapsed on 20 April, yet a week later there is still no news about when the verdict will be made available. This intolerable situation is creating even greater strain for all those involved. Will my right hon. Friend make representations on this matter?

Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have followed this case with some concern over a long time. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the case of her constituent. The Government are concerned about the matter, and I know that it has been followed closely by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I will ensure that he responds to my hon. Friend in the light of her detailed question.

May I give the Leader of the House some very simple NHS statistics? Two early-stage breast cancer sufferers are receiving Herceptin at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital cost-free from their primary care trust. Those who have Shropshire addresses could receive such care at that hospital if the Shropshire PCT would fund it, but, because it will not, they are having to raise £47,000 each for the treatment, and there are 12 of them. It cannot be right that people with a Staffordshire address, a Cheshire address or a Welsh address get the drug free from their PCT, while people with a Shropshire address have to find £47,000 for it. My final statistic is that I have written three times to the Secretary of State: on 25 March, 5 April and 19 April. She has not answered once. Will she please come to the House and answer my questions?

The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue before—

And I will again.

The hon. Gentleman heckles me to say that he will again, but I hope that he will not have to, because the Government's position is clear on this issue. We do not believe that there should be a difference in treatment according to where people live. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made that absolutely clear in relation to Herceptin and a number of other drugs. These decisions should be taken on an individual basis in the light of the clinician's judgment. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend responds to the hon. Gentleman again.

rose—

Order. We must move on, as I have to protect time-limited Northern Ireland business, and there is now a statement.

With the leave of the House, I wish repeat a statement made in another place by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I wish to inform the House of decisions taken by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Army Prosecuting Authority in a case that has attracted a great deal of media attention. The case concerns an incident in Iraq on 24 March 2003 that resulted in the fatal shootings of Sergeant Steven Roberts, formerly of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, and Mr Zaher Zabti Zaher, an Iraqi.

The Crown Prosecution Service has now informed me that, after a full investigation of the case and a careful review of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings in this case. The Army Prosecuting Authority has also had the opportunity to examine the evidence in this case, including that obtained by the Metropolitan police, and has decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge any of the servicemen with military offences.

The CPS has produced a review note explaining its decision, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. As appears from that note, on the evidence available when the Attorney-General asked the CPS to consider the case, it might have been perceived that British soldiers had shot an unarmed Iraqi civilian, Mr. Zaher, a number of times, even after he had been severely injured and was in no position to pose a threat to anyone. In the course of firing at Mr. Zaher, two bullets had struck Sergeant Roberts, who was killed.

At the request of the CPS, the Metropolitan police carried out further inquiries, which resulted in the interview of five US soldiers who had witnessed part of the incident, a detailed statement from an Iraqi witness, and an autopsy on the body of the deceased Iraqi citizen. As its review note states, the CPS believes that it now has the fullest account of what occurred, although the passage of time has undoubtedly adversely affected the quality of some of that evidence. As it also explained, there are some differences in the accounts given.

I will now set out the essence of the account on which the CPS, having considered the totality of the evidence, has proceeded. I quote:

"On Sunday 24 March 2003 a troop of three Challenger battle tanks, part of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, were involved in a road block on the outskirts of Az Zubayr, Iraq, to stop and search vehicles for weapons.

Shortly after 6.00 am, Mr Zaher approached the tanks throwing rocks, firstly at the tanks and then at Sergeant Roberts who was standing alone outside his tank. Sergeant Roberts put out his hand, apparently as a signal for Mr Zaher to stop, but he did not do so. Sergeant Roberts drew his pistol and aimed it at Mr Zaher but although it appears that he fired one shot, the pistol malfunctioned and Mr Zaher continued to approach him, throwing more rocks. Sergeant Roberts apparently tried to clear the jam as Mr Zaher advanced.

A soldier in one of the tanks opened fire, apparently as warning shots, but Mr Zaher did not stop. Soldiers from two of the tanks then fired a number of shots at Mr Zaher. One of those weapons was set to fire at targets a considerable distance away and was not accurate at close range. Although Mr Zaher was hit and severely injured in the arm, two of the bullets struck Sergeant Roberts in the torso and he fell to the floor, fatally wounded. As soldiers dismounted from the tanks to give assistance to Sergeant Roberts, Mr Zaher got up holding a rock and started towards him again. One soldier, who had gone to assist Sergeant Roberts, said he feared that Mr Zaher was about to attack again so he fired his pistol several times and Mr Zaher again fell to the floor. According to some of the soldiers, despite his injuries, Mr Zaher again got up to advance on Sergeant Roberts, and holding a rock. The soldier who was attending to Sergeant Roberts, perceived that Mr Zaher still posed a threat and directed another soldier to shoot Mr Zaher. On this occasion he did not get up. British medical staff attended and Sergeant Roberts and Mr Zaher were declared dead at the scene."

I now want to turn to the circumstances of the investigation of this case. Shortly after the incident, the special investigations branch of the Royal Military Police—the SIB—undertook an early sudden death criminal investigation and produced a short report. It said that the SIB was unable to examine the scene or gather forensic evidence, although photos of the location were taken five days later. The incident was also investigated by the Army accident prevention and investigation team to determine whether any immediate steps could be taken to improve systems and procedures. On 4 July 2003, the commanding officer of the soldiers involved in the incident decided that no further investigation of the incident was necessary. That decision followed advice from an Army Legal Services officer who had read the first SIB report.

However, subsequently, on 18 July 2003, the head of the SIB concluded that the case had not been fully investigated. He was concerned about gaps in the evidence and, after discussion with the Army Prosecuting Authority, decided to reopen the investigation and seek a second legal opinion on the case. Attempts by the head of the SIB to reopen the investigation were resisted by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division chain of command on the basis of the original legal advice. One issue that loomed large was whether the prosecution would have to establish conclusively at the onset of the trial that Mr. Zaher was not a combatant. It was also said that, were a case to proceed, soldiers could rely on the defence that they were acting in self-defence under the rules of engagement.

In fact, as article 50 of protocol 1 to the Geneva convention 1977 makes clear, if there is doubt about whether a person is a civilian, that person should be considered to be a civilian. On 7 August 2003, a more senior officer of the Army Legal Services unequivocally advised the chain of command that the investigation should be reopened. A further investigation was required because: the British soldiers who had fired shots during the incident had not been interviewed under caution; witness statements had not been taken from the American soldiers or the Iraqi witness; a further ballistics investigation was required to ascertain which soldiers had fired shots; and there had been no post-mortem of Mr. Zaher's body.

The chain of command continued to receive conflicting advice from the Army Legal Services, but on 11 September 2003 the chain of command agreed with the head of the SIB that there should be a further criminal investigation, on the understanding that the British soldiers involved in the incident would not be interviewed under caution at that stage. In February 2004, the chain of command received additional advice from the senior Army Legal Services lawyer on whether Mr. Zaher was to be regarded as a civilian or a combatant. Also, in February 2004, the chain of command agreed that the SIB should continue its investigation in the most appropriate way according to its professional judgement. Soldiers who had been at the incident were then interviewed under caution by the SIB.

On 3 August 2004, the head of the Army Prosecuting Authority wrote to the Attorney-General, as the superintending Minister of both the APA and the CPS, advising that this case should be dealt with in the civil jurisdiction. The military and UK civilian courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a whole range of serious offences allegedly committed by UK nationals overseas. He was concerned about the considerable time that had elapsed between the incident and the chain of command permitting a full investigation by the SIB.

The Attorney-General agreed with the head of the APA, after consulting the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the case should be transferred to the civilian jurisdiction. The Attorney-General was concerned that the intervention by the chain of command, and the delays in the case, could have led to the defence lawyers raising abuse of process arguments had the soldiers been charged with criminal offences. An acquittal by a military court, following a successful abuse of process argument by the defence, might have been perceived by some as a final act of the military to cover up any possible wrongdoing by the British soldiers involved in the incident. Such perceptions would not have been in the interest of the soldiers and might have damaged the reputation of the military justice system.

Once the case had been transferred to the civilian jurisdiction in October 2004, the CPS concluded that further investigations were essential and the Metropolitan police took over the investigation. The Metropolitan police had to carry out its investigation in the difficult circumstances that prevailed in Iraq. During that time, the body of Mr. Zaher was exhumed and an autopsy was undertaken. The American soldiers were interviewed, a further ballistics report was obtained, and efforts began in earnest to discover whether the local population could help the police with their inquiries. After the Metropolitan police had completed its investigation in February 2006, all the available evidence was reviewed by the CPS, following advice from Treasury counsel in March 2006.

The CPS, having been satisfied that the Metropolitan police had completed all inquiries that could be undertaken, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict any of the British soldiers of the deaths of Mr. Zaher and Sergeant Roberts. The reason for that was that the evidence of those soldiers involved in the shooting was that Mr. Zaher was attacking Sergeant Roberts and that they acted to defend him. The conclusion of investigations shows that, while there were inconsistencies in accounts provided by them, British soldiers at the scene who witnessed the incident broadly support that version. The statements provided by the American witnesses and the forensic evidence did not in substance undermine the accounts of the British servicemen. Mr. Miz El Subaiyih, the single Iraqi witness, gave a different account of the incident, making no reference to Sergeant Roberts being shot and referred only to the shooting of Mr. Zaher.

The Attorney-General is wholly satisfied that the decision to transfer this exceptional case to the civilian system was the right action to take in the particular circumstances of the case. He also believes that it would have been better if there had been an earlier full investigation, as the head of the SIB and the senior advisory lawyer unequivocally recommended. Only after a full investigation had been completed were the prosecutors in a position to make informed decisions. However, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no suggestion that the chain of command acted unlawfully.

The difficulties associated with the initial stages of this case should not detract from the fact that the case has now been fully investigated. The full investigation has established that there is no realistic prospect of conviction. I very much regret the stress that any delay must have caused Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Zaher's relatives and the soldiers and their families. This case has taken a significant period to conclude but further measures have been put in place to ensure that service cases are better handled in future. I am assured by my ministerial colleagues that the Ministry of Defence has provided additional resources for investigations in Iraq, including more trained investigators to deal with the most serious cases, and additional clerical support and equipment.

In addition, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will soon begin a thematic inspection of the SIB, and will report later this year. The Attorney-General has encouraged the service prosecuting authorities to work closely with service investigators to improve the quality of investigations and to reduce delay. The Attorney-General has also discussed these issues with the Judge Advocate-General, who has introduced new directions hearings and which are reducing delay.

I am pleased to inform the House that the military police and the APA prosecutors are now, as a matter of standard practice, working closely together from the outset of investigations in serious cases. One advantage of that approach is that the investigators now receive early legal advice from independent APA prosecutors on the weight of evidence and on what further inquiries need to be undertaken before a decision is reached on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect. That approach, together with a provision in the Armed Forces Bill, will help to avoid the delays that took place in this case. The Bill makes it clear that when the military police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect with a serious criminal offence, the case must be referred to the director of service prosecutions for an independent legal decision.

Some 100,000 servicemen and women have served on Operation Telic. Only a very small number have been accused of incidents involving the alleged ill-treatment of Iraqi civilians. Where there is an allegation of wrongdoing and there is supporting evidence following investigation, charges will be brought. Our troops in Iraq continue to perform outstandingly, but they are not above the law.

Today, our sympathies must of course go to all the families involved, but particularly to the family of Sergeant Roberts.

Let me begin by echoing the Solicitor-General's expressions of sympathy for the family of Sergeant Roberts, and indeed for that of Mr. Zaher, in this tragic series of events. I thank the Solicitor-General for early sight of his statement—all the more because the first indication I had that the statement would be made was in an e-mail timed at 1.14 this morning, which rather suggests that the Attorney-General and his Department were left a little in the dark by the Government's business managers on how today's business would be conducted.

The Solicitor-General's statement, and the CPS report that accompanied it, were extremely thorough, illuminating and helpful in explaining what happened. I am entirely satisfied that the Attorney-General has acted completely properly in this matter. In the light of that, I hope that the Solicitor-General will take in good part the points that I think need to be raised.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that what emerges most clearly from the CPS report, after two lengthy investigations of the matter—one through Army Legal Services and the SIB between 2003 and 2004, and the second by the police and the CPS—is that the original conclusion and assessment by the first SIB report and the commanding officer was, in fact, entirely correct? This was an incident in which soldiers acted to protect a comrade, Sergeant Roberts, who was under attack from Mr. Zaher. The incident took place in difficult circumstances and with tragic consequences, but no one could possibly say that there was any imputation of criminality. In that context, it is perhaps a little unfortunate that as lawyers we must resort to the expression "insufficient evidence to prosecute". As the Solicitor-General may agree, on the facts given it is difficult to see that this was anything other than a tragic series of events initiated by Mr. Zaher's behaviour.

I am glad that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have acknowledged concern about the length of time that this matter has taken. Part of it—a longer period—was during the time in which the Attorney-General was seized of the matter, but I accept that it was an investigation in difficult circumstances. I hope that the Solicitor-General can provide some reassurance that he is satisfied that the police investigation was conducted as expeditiously as possible.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that what we should strive for in cases such as this is prompt and thorough investigation by the SIB, through the APA, when the specialist nature of its skills can properly reflect the extremely challenging environment in which soldiers are operating, in what in this instance was a combat zone during the initial stages of hostilities in Iraq? May we be reassured that the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are satisfied that the new structures that they have established will work to enable the SIB and the APA to provide an efficient and effective service?

The Solicitor-General may agree with me that it is clear that there were inconsistencies in the approach initially, which left the Army chain of command in considerable difficulty over what line to adopt. What we ought, and hope, to see in future is a fairly seamless process whereby such matters can be dealt with in the military sphere, and intervention by the Attorney-General and the police is very rarely needed.

I realise that this may fall a little outside the Solicitor-General's province, but it is pretty plain from the CPS report that the disquiet that has been expressed about the circumstances in which the troops found themselves at the time must remain in question. The use of tank crews in a semi-infantry role to carry out what amounted to a form of crowd control, at a time when they were engaged in intense hostilities—and had been so very recently—and with some equipment that was described in the CPS report as totally unsuitable for the circumstances in which they found themselves—we also know that body armour was deficient in the case of Sergeant Roberts—must give rise to anxieties. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to communicate those anxieties to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and that we may be able to hear more from them about that aspect of the matter in due course.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded, and particularly for his comments about the "thorough, illuminating and helpful" CPS report and his comment that the Attorney-General had acted properly throughout. He has indeed.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this was a tragic series of events. He asked whether the original conclusion was correct. That is so, in the sense that the conclusion has been the same from the start, but conclusions should be reached on the basis of a full and proper investigation of the evidence. That is the way in which we should do it in this country, and that is the way in which our armed forces seek to operate. That is why, when questions were raised about the way in which this case had proceeded, it was necessary for the matter to be dealt with by the CPS and the Metropolitan police. Now, no one can argue that there was not a full and proper investigation, as indeed there was. It is in the interests of everyone, including the military, that such incidents are fairly and properly investigated and that our armed forces are clearly seen to be subject to the rule of law. Nothing could be more damaging to the reputation of our armed forces, and more likely to provoke hostility towards them, than the suggestion that they can get away with criminal acts of violence against civilians with impunity and without full and proper investigations.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the thoroughness of SIB investigations and whether the Attorney-General and I were satisfied that the procedures now being introduced were adequate to ensure proper investigation. The key change is that in future the prosecutors in serious cases will be involved from an early stage. That will enable them to give advice and guidance to the SIB about what evidence needs to be collected and what procedures are necessary, so that—we hope—investigations will proceed much more effectively in future. We are satisfied that those improvements are very important. In addition, the report on the SIB by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which is due later this year, will provide important guidance on what improvement the SIB needs to make internally.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the delays. They are indeed regrettable. There were clearly differences of view in Army Legal Services: our lawyers, quite honestly, had formed different opinions. The Army chain of command was therefore subject to a degree of different advice, which is regrettable.

The Metropolitan police investigation was obviously hampered by the circumstances in Iraq. A particular difficulty was that the Metropolitan police had to secure the confidence of Mr. Zaher's family in order to have access to his body and conduct an autopsy. That took some time. We did not get the autopsy results—in final form, at least—until February. In March, Treasury counsel offered an opinion to the CPS, which was then able to inform us of its final conclusion.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this tragic series of events has been fully investigated and that the soldiers involved can move on, knowing that their position has been clearly set out and that there are no circumstances in which anyone could argue that they should be prosecuted.

The whole House will join the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in expressing sympathy to Sergeant Steven Roberts' wife, Mrs. Samantha Roberts, his mother and the rest of the family, and, indeed, to the family of Mr. Zaher. As we all know, it has taken the three years and a month that has passed since those tragic deaths—it is almost three years to the day since Sergeant Roberts' funeral—to resolve this issue. However, I welcome the fact that a clear conclusion has now been reached. I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is the right one and that it should put an end to this terrible period of uncertainty.

I, too, recognise that in investigating these events and the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings in the complicated and difficult circumstances that surrounded the outset of this conflict, it would have been very unfair to judge that these soldiers, in doing what they thought they were duty bound to do—to support their colleagues—should be prosecuted in the criminal courts. They will be hugely relieved, as will their colleagues serving in Iraq and elsewhere. We pay tribute to the work that they do, usually without fear for themselves, and their willingness to take risks.

In the light of this experience, the Armed Forces Bill and other related matters, are the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General satisfied that such a delay—a year and a quarter was spent on the internal investigation and the rest on an external civilian investigation—will not happen again in any foreseeable circumstances? That must be the major lesson for all concerned to learn. Secondly, like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I was slightly concerned by the Attorney-General's use of the phrase "insufficient evidence to prosecute". Were the same two tests that would normally be applied in any civilian case—whether there was a more than 50 per cent. chance of conviction, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed—applied in this case? I assume that they were, and that that is therefore the end of the matter.

Thirdly, are we sure that the boundary between military investigation by the armed services' legal authorities and civilian investigation is now clear, both at home and abroad? The Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram)—he is in his place—knows that the Deepcut investigation raised the same issues: who should investigate and who should decide on prosecution? Will there be a speedy process to decide who investigates, in order to give maximum confidence?

My final point links to one mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. On the responsibilities of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, are they seized of issues relating to a duty on the British Army and its management to ensure that service personnel go into the front line properly equipped? Is there such a duty of care, and will it always be fulfilled by ensuring that personnel have the kit, equipment, clothing and other materiel to allow them to do their duty safely and properly?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our armed forces. We ask a lot of them in very difficult circumstances, particularly in Iraq; throughout their period there, they have done Britain proud. As I have said, there are very few cases where an investigation has been necessary because our forces' behaviour has been outstanding. However, it is right that these investigations take place expeditiously. On the delays about which the hon. Gentleman asked, we believe that the new procedures will speed up the process. The Judge Advocate-General has instituted new court procedures, which are already paying dividends by ensuring that courts martial are heard more quickly. Moreover, as a result of this and other cases, the SIB has improved its procedures. I hope that the HMIC report, which we should receive in due course, will provide the advice that the SIB needs to enable it further to improve its carrying out of such investigations.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the same tests are applied in considering whether to prosecute, and the answer is yes. In this case, there was no realistic prospect of a conviction, so in a sense the public interest test did not need to be applied. The evidence did not substantiate initiating proceedings. On the link between Army and civilian courts, this Parliament has created circumstances in which it is appropriate for cases to be transferred from one jurisdiction to another. We firmly believe that the military courts system is very good. It has delivered justice very fairly across a range of issues, and we continue to have substantial faith in it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the duties of the Ministry of Defence, which is of course obliged to ensure that it provides soldiers serving in Iraq and elsewhere with proper equipment. The question of kevlar plates and the wearing of the appropriate protective jacket played no part in the legal decisions. Although the pathologist's evidence is not conclusive, it does suggest that, because Sergeant Roberts was shot in the torso, a protective jacket might have made a difference and might have saved his life. My colleagues in the MOD are taking account of that issue. I should point out that the MOD is not a body corporate, of course, and has Crown immunity in relation to such matters. That, in a sense, deals with the hon. Gentleman's point about legal duties.

I repeat that I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our armed forces.

As the Solicitor-General will know, Mrs. Roberts is a constituent of mine. All our thoughts go out to her and her family at what has obviously been an incredibly distressing time. I welcome the Solicitor-General's statement, particularly his saying that there will be no prosecution of the soldiers involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, this was clearly a tragic series of events, involving soldiers working in incredibly difficult circumstances. I also welcome the concern expressed about the length of time taken to resolve this situation, which can only have added to the distress experienced by Mrs. Roberts and the rest of Sergeant Roberts' family.

The fact is that the main cause of Sergeant Roberts' death was the Government's insufficient preparation for the war in Iraq and the inadequacy of the kit. Tragically, Sergeant Roberts raised this issue himself in Iraq before he died. His wife has campaigned bravely on it, and I pay tribute to the courage that she has shown in that regard since her husband's death. She has acted with great dignity and she should be commended for that. I hope that, as a fitting tribute to Sergeant Roberts and the campaign fought by Mrs. Roberts, the Ministry of Defence will take note of the lessons to be learned and ensure that no other soldier dies, as Sergeant Roberts tragically died, because of inadequate kit.

Of course, every death of a member of British service personnel is felt profoundly in the military family. All our thoughts are with Mrs. Roberts during these very difficult circumstances. She has been very concerned about the question of the protective equipment that her husband might have worn, and I am assured that the MOD has learned the lessons, is well aware of the circumstances of this case and is seeking to do all that it can to discharge its responsibilities to our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere.

I share the expressions of sympathy to Mrs. Roberts and the other members of Sergeant Roberts' family. I welcome the fact that the Solicitor-General said that investigations into incidents such as this will be conducted much more speedily in the future, and I am sure that we are all glad to hear that. The Solicitor-General will no doubt be aware that my predecessor, Lord Tyler, worked with the Roberts family in seeking to bring the matters surrounding the tragic death of Sergeant Roberts to the attention of the wider world.

The issue of the lack of equipment that may have saved Sergeant Roberts' life is a matter of concern across Cornwall and the rest of the country. I welcome the Solicitor-General's assurances that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are investigating it and ensuring that such factors will not cause further deaths in future. However, can he tell us a little more about how investigations into that aspect of Sergeant Roberts' death impacted on the decision on whether to bring charges and the results of that consideration?

The presence or otherwise of the protective jacket is a matter for the Ministry of Defence and others, and it did not have any substantial bearing on the legal decisions. In terms of the lawyers' examination of the evidence, the issue was whether the soldiers had acted appropriately and whether Mr. Zaher was posing a threat to them at the time. Those matters were looked at and conclusions were reached based on a full investigation and consideration of the evidence. The straight answer to his question is that the presence or absence of kevlar plates and a protective jacket was not, in legal terms at least, an issue that had a substantial bearing on the outcome of the case.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his meticulous care in warning us of the statement that he has made today, and for its tone and content. He is right to say that our soldiers are not, and should never be, immune from prosecution. They are subject to the rule of law and that is what they are fighting for. The statement gives us a lot of information that we can look at now with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose the value of hindsight is that we can learn from it for the future.

There are two aspects on which I hope that the Solicitor-General can comment. First, the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is one to which insufficient attention has perhaps been given. Secondly, the Solicitor-General referred to differences of view in the Army Legal Services. Given the fact that our soldiers are fighting on behalf of all us—and doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances—does he agree that more benefit of the doubt could be given to our soldiers in relation to prosecutions such as this?

It is important that whenever we look at a case involving our soldiers engaged in active service areas, such as Iraq, we take into account the precise circumstances in which they are operating. When making a decision, we need to take into account the threat that soldiers may feel under and the background circumstances that they face. In looking at the evidence, those who make decisions on prosecution—be it the APA or the Crown Prosecution Service, as in this case—will consider those circumstances. Therefore, I do not think that we need to change the test.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. Delays such as those in this case are regrettable, but it is also important that we have a full and thorough investigation. What we cannot have is a situation in which people make allegations that there has been some kind of cover up. They cannot do so here, because the case has been fully and properly investigated on several occasions. No criticism can now attach to the thoroughness of the investigation. If we demand that other countries comply with international law and basic standards, we must show that we do to. This case shows that. We have conducted a full investigation and reached a conclusion based on the evidence. That is what we ask other countries to do and that is what we must continue to do ourselves.

I am afraid that I will not be so charitable towards the statement, but that is perhaps because, as a former soldier, I know too well the effects that delay and such investigations have on the morale of soldiers, their families and units—especially those in the front line.

The Solicitor-General said that the case was started because it might have been perceived that British soldiers shot an unarmed civilian. However, at the end of his statement he said that if there is an allegation of wrongdoing and supporting evidence following an investigation, charges will be brought. Is it not the case that there was not actually an allegation of wrongdoing in this case, but that yet again commanding officers and units in the front line—who know the environment, as did the local Army Legal Services staff—were overruled for reasons of perception, not reasons of correct justice?

There was, regrettably, an allegation of improper behaviour. The independent Iraqi civilian who made some allegations put forward a version of events that did not include the shooting of Sergeant Roberts, but did suggest that the behaviour of the troopers involved had not been appropriate. That was discovered at a later stage, but it is clear that perceptions might have arisen after an unarmed civilian had been shot. It is right that when that occurs, the British Army should protect itself by having a proper, full and thorough investigation so that it can say that it acted lawfully and properly, that it is not above the law and that it does things the right way. To suggest that there should not have been a full investigation is just plain wrong and it would undermine the very basis on which our Army claims to act. It is right and appropriate that there should have been a full investigation. It was carried out, and those soldiers can now say that it was done and they were cleared.

In my hon. and learned Friend's statement he said that there were "inconsistencies" in the accounts provided by the soldiers. Does he recognise that there are always inconsistencies in statements given by witnesses? If there are no inconsistencies, the witnesses are deemed to have colluded before giving their evidence. It also rankles with some of us that after an extensive inquiry the statement concludes that there is "insufficient evidence" to institute criminal proceedings in this case. We have the evidence—surely it shows that there is no case to answer.

It is the case that there is insufficient evidence and therefore there is no case to answer. I am afraid that lawyers tend to use legal terminology, and the public have a right to know that the conclusion is that there is not a case to be answered in the criminal courts. My hon. Friend mentioned inconsistencies. The incident took place in the early stages of the armed conflict in Iraq and soldiers were clearly under a great deal of stress. The circumstances were confusing, including the fact that the machine gun was set to fire at a greater distance than events required. There were a series of factors that led to an element of confusion and, therefore, it is not unlikely that accounts should display inconsistencies. Anyone who has experience of hearing witnesses give evidence in court will know that there are often honest inconsistencies.

As a former soldier, I share in the tributes paid to our servicemen and women who represent our country abroad. They do a difficult job. I also share the thoughts for the families who face pressures when servicemen or women are abroad.

I draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to a written answer from the former Secretary of State for Defence, in which he stated that Sergeant Roberts' wife

"was provided with a summary of the incident on 18 June 2003 by the Casualty Visiting Officer".—[Official Report, 22 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1392W.]

As everybody is aware, Sergeant Roberts' death took place five days into the conflict on 24 March 2003, so there is a two-month difference. Does the Solicitor-General agree that two months was far too long to draw out the basic facts of the case and provide them to the widow in those tragic circumstances? Some people have said that the reason for the delay and for allowing the argument about enhanced body armour to run in the media was to cover up the fact that it was a case of friendly fire. There are many lessons to be learned about improving communications to stop rumours spreading, especially in the British press, which do not help the morale of the troops and do not help us in communicating exactly what happened.

It is important that families are given as much information as is reasonable as early as possible and that the information is accurate, which means that there must be some degree of investigation of it. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) that sometimes there are inconsistencies in statements and all sorts of issues arise, especially in a conflict zone. There were difficulties in returning to the site to gather forensic evidence. I am sorry that Mrs. Roberts had to wait so long for a description of what had happened to her husband. That is obviously distressing, but it is important that when a description is given it is as accurate as possible, which requires investigation and that requires time. It would have been even worse, however, if Mrs. Roberts had been given one explanation and then over time, as new evidence emerged, it was changed time and again. I suspect that that would lead to even greater distress.

The media do not have to be accurate when they report things. The Government and the Ministry of Defence at least try to be as accurate as we reasonably can in the information we give. It is important that time is taken. The media want the story tomorrow, but the Government have to get the full story out as accurately as possible, which may take a bit more time and in some cases, such as this one, a substantial degree of extra time.

I had the privilege of visiting Iraq in June 2003 as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. During our time there, I spent nearly 24 hours with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. I ate with the soldiers, talked to them and went on patrol with them in a Challenger tank. The point they made about Sergeant Roberts' death was that he did not have kevlar; I understand that he had in fact been given kevlar but asked to give it to another soldier. They clearly believe that the lack of that protection led to his death. Should not the Government look into whether the forces should have a duty of care to ensure that the basic safety equipment required for front-line duties is actually provided? The family of Sergeant Roberts could then have taken a case against the services for their failure to protect his life. He gave his life for his country.

The Ministry of Defence always has to be risk-aware and, where it can, provide the appropriate equipment, but there is no such thing as a risk-free environment, and certainly not in Iraq; our soldiers and other service persons run risks when they are on active service. My earlier comment that the MOD has looked at the case and sought to learn lessons is appropriate. The MOD will seek to provide appropriate equipment and to ensure that soldiers have whatever protection can reasonably be given, but no circumstances, not least in Iraq, are without some degree of risk.

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert

'(including proposals to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883)'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

'(1A) Each candidate for either office under subsection (1)(a) above must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.'.

No. 17, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

'(1A) Two candidates standing jointly for the purposes of an election under subsection (1)(a) above shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of—

(a) a majority of the members voting in the election,

(b) a majority of the designated Nationalists voting, and

(c) a majority of the designated Unionists voting.'.

No. 21, in schedule 1, page 4, line 5, leave out first 'Assembly' and insert 'Forum'.

No. 22, in page 4, line 5, leave out second 'Assembly' and insert 'Forum'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 9, at end insert

'and to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.'.

No. 23, in page 4, line 15, leave out sub-sub-paragraph 1(a).

No. 4, in page 4, line 18, leave out from 'officers' to end of line 19.

No. 25, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—

'(1A) A person shall not be elected under sub-sub-paragraph 3(1)(b) above or sub-sub-paragraph 3(3)(b) below without cross-community support.

(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A) above "cross-community support" shall have the same meaning as in subsection 39(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.'.

No. 24, in page 4, line 26, leave out sub-sub-paragraph 3(a).

No. 26, in page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph 4.

No. 27, in page 5, line 18, leave out paragraph 6.

No. 6, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—

'Assembly control of Orders in Council

7 Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 2000 Act is replaced by—

"Parliamentary and Assembly control of Orders in Council

2(1) Except where sub-paragraph (2) applies, an Order in Council may not be made under paragraph 1(1) unless each of the following conditions is met—

(a) Condition 1 is that a draft of the Order has been referred under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 to the Assembly;