With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.

On 4 May, during business questions, you asked me whether I had given the Secretary of State for Wales notice of my intention to name him. I said that contact had been made at five minutes to 11. My personal assistant, in my presence and hearing, telephoned the Secretary of State's office at that time and was told that he was away on a private, family matter. The member of staff at the Wales Office offered to put me through to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I did not take up that offer. I recognise that I did not make that clear, and that by not doing so, I inadvertently misled you and the House, for which I sincerely apologise.

I thank the hon. Member for his apology to me and to the House. It is clear that he did not succeed in alerting the Secretary of State for Wales to the fact that he intended to refer to him in business questions last week. That is a courtesy that every Member should observe when intending to make a serious allegation against another Member. I expect all Members to observe that convention scrupulously in future. Having said that, I do not intend to allow any debate or points of order about the hon. Member's apology, and still less about the substance of his allegation last week. That is a matter to be pursued elsewhere, if at all.

I see that the Leader of the House is eager to give us the business for the next two weeks, which I ask him to do.

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 15 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Tuesday 16 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Wednesday 17 May—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Thursday 18 May—Motion relating to Members and Chairmen's pay, followed by a motion relating to the Association of Former Members.

Friday 19 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 22 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.

Tuesday 23 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.

Wednesday 24 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.

Thursday 25 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.

The House will rise at the close of business on Thursday 25 May and return on Monday 5 June.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the 25 May and 8 June will be:

Thursday 25 May—A debate on west coast route modernisation.

Thursday 8 June—A debate on economic partnership agreement.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. I have already had the opportunity to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, and I am sure that this will be the start of a fruitful relationship— [ Interruption.] But there are certain matters that I should make clear to him from the outset. I do not get up at 4.30 am to go to the gym, I cannot play the piano and I have absolutely no intention of standing for the presidency of the United States. None the less, may we have a debate in Government time on Iran? Given the different views within the Government on what action should be taken, such a debate would allow the Foreign Secretary to clarify whether she has changed the Government's position.

According to a recent report, half of all the children born to parents with learning difficulties are taken into care. This raises concern about the authorities' attitude to those parents. Furthermore, the state's failure to care properly for looked-after children raises concerns about their future. This country's record on looked-after children is a scandal. May we have a debate on the matter?

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on advice to primary care trusts about the use of Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer? It was clear from Tuesday's debate that there are still widespread differences in the approaches of different PCTs across the country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on her new housing development policy, and particularly on why my constituents and those of other hon. Members will not be allowed to object to overdevelopment, whereas her constituents will be? We could then ask her what the Government have learned from the recent council elections, which of course saw Labour lose 319 councillors—[Hon. Members: "How many?"] That was 319, for those who did not hear me. And the Conservatives gained 316 new councillors—

Say that again!

The Conservative party gained 316 new councillors. Of course, we should not forget the Liberal Democrats, who gained two.

May we have a debate on the future of the Rural Payments Agency? The Minister responsible was sacked in the reshuffle, and the chief executive was sacked less than three months ago. His replacement is now leaving, and the new chief executive will be an interim appointment. Yet, amid all that chaos, farmers are expected to apply for their 2006 payments by next Monday, despite the fact that many of them are not sure of their entitlements. A debate on the matter is needed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister to go on a course on personnel management to ensure that he does not make such a botch of his next reshuffle? The Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was told that he was going to be Foreign Secretary for Europe and in the Cabinet, then he was in the Cabinet without a vote, and then he was told he was out of the Cabinet with a pay cut. The hospitals Minister resigned but the Prime Minister did not know about it. The Prime Minister appointed a new farms Minister but she did not know about it. She refused the job and someone else had to be called back from another job and made farms Minister. Does not this prove that the Government are in complete and utter chaos?

Finally, may we have a debate on equality policy so that the appropriate Minister can clarify whether there has been a change in Government policy, and so that we can remind the Prime Minster that the Equal Pay Act 1970 requires equal pay for equal work? We could then discuss how it is that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is also the Minister for Women and Equality, and who has an entire Department to run, a budget of billions of pounds and hundreds of staff, is paid the same as the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who gets a grand title but no Department, few staff, and no responsibilities—and, by the way, two Jags and two homes to go with it. Better still, may we just have a statement from the Prime Minister explaining what on earth is the point of the Deputy Prime Minster?

I thank the right hon. Lady for welcoming me to this position. I, too, look forward to developing not only a fruitful relationship with her but a close and meaningful one. I know that she does not get up at 4.30 in the morning, but I could still invite her to Blackburn and show her its delights. Perhaps I could also arrange piano lessons for her.

I shall pursue the right hon. Lady's suggestion of a debate in Government time on Iran. I proposed to my predecessor as Leader of the House that a debate on middle east issues, including Iraq, Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict, would be a good idea, and my request received a sympathetic hearing.

And the answer was no.

The answer was not no; it was maybe—and it still is. The issue is the straightforward one of trying to find space for such debates, on the assumption that Members on both sides of the House wish to adjourn for the summer recess on 25 July. I am happy to stay on, but I will do my best, and I recognise the importance of the issue. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said, each of us must choose our own language when dealing with questions, but in practice there is absolutely no difference between her approach, the Prime Minister's and mine to the issue of Iran.

On the issue of children with learning difficulties, I do not accept that the state's position has been a failure. However, dealing with looked-after children has always been very difficult, for Governments of both parties. We can always do better, but parenting difficulties are the reason why the children must be looked after in the first place, as all of us know from our constituency experience.

I shall follow up the right hon. Lady's request that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health make a statement on advice to PCTs about Herceptin. It might be a written ministerial statement, but I accept that an issue was raised on Wednesday, and I listened to the debate.

The right hon. Lady's point about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is ridiculous, if she will allow me to say that. The criticism of my right hon. Friend has been that she has represented her constituents— [Interruption.] No, with great respect, everybody knows that any Secretary of State who has a power in relation to local authorities opts out entirely of any decisions relating to their own constituency. There cannot be a single Member on either side of the House who is not assiduous in representing constituents and following up representations made about planning applications. The Government and local authorities must balance those representations in the round. I have made plenty of representations against development on behalf of my constituents. The local authority, which happens to be controlled by my party, often says, "Thank you very much for those representations, but we can't accept them." We all acknowledge that. The criticism of my right hon. Friend is that she is simply doing her job, so it is one that I wholly resist.

As for the recent council elections, I shall just say two things—

You lost—that is one of them!

Yes, that is one of them. In each of the May local elections in the 1980s and 1990s, we did rather better than the Conservative party. We used to chalk up hundreds of gains. In the mid-1980s, I was the local government spokesperson for my party in opposition. If success in local elections had led automatically to an election of a Labour Government, we would have had one in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992.

The right hon. Lady did not mention the local election results in Blackburn, where it is true that the Labour party had a net loss of two, which may be understandable, but it is also true that the Conservative party had a net loss of two. The Conservative party shrunk from 17 seats to 15.

I do not think that a statement on the Rural Payments Agency is necessary, although I understand all the difficulties that have been faced in respect of the RPA. I have carefully considered the figures today, and Ministers in the other place have been making announcements. I understand that 85 per cent. of the value of the payments due for 2005 have now been made to 50 per cent. of the farmers concerned. The payments outstanding for 2005 are very small—some thousands. They ought to be made, however, and they will be made as quickly as possible. We have apologised for the mistakes that have occurred. As for the future, I shall certainly raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I think that the position is now improving.

Finally, the right hon. Lady raised a serious point about equality. I defer to no one, least of all members of the Conservative party, on the subject of our record on equality. I was in the House when a Conservative Government, to cheers from the Conservative party, forced through section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 and failed to do anything about equality for those who had a different sexual preference. They also did very little about equality for those whose skins were a different colour. In 18 years of Conservative government, there was no legislation whatever in respect of racial or religious equality. We will take no lectures on equality from the right hon. Lady or her party.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1705?

[That this House notes that the Square Route Group, a group of women on Wearside, have transformed their community in New Herrington by the creation of a doorstep green in the centre of their community; further notes that they have just completed the funding of road markings and new art features including four trees fired in metal, to be officially launched in May; and congratulates them for the achievement of true people power and for raising more than half a million pounds to reach their outstanding goal.]

The motion, which is in my name and those of 17 other Members, pays tribute to an inspirational group of women in my constituency who, after five years of hard work in a former mining area, have raised more than £500,000—as a result of help from a Labour-controlled council and a Labour Government—to transform the environment of their former mining community beyond all recognition. The official opening takes place next week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to an area that was neglected for so long under the Tories? It is a great deal better now, and the people there are enjoying the benefits of a Labour Government.

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating that group of women on the transformation of not just the environment, but one of the communities that were decimated by the closure of the pits under the Conservatives.

I note that I have not been invited to Blackburn yet.

May we have a debate on progress towards an international arms trade treaty? Perhaps the new Foreign Secretary will tell us whether she intends to go to the United Nations small arms review conference in New York next month. The arms trade is an extremely important issue on which this country can and should take a lead, and I believe that a debate would be of value.

May we have a debate on the BBC charter and the licence fee? The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the Select Committee on 2 November that such a debate would constitute a good approach. Presumably there is a letter somewhere in the right hon. Gentleman's "pending" tray asking for one. May I ask him to give the matter proper consideration? This would be an opportune moment.

May we have a debate on the probation service following last week's tragic events? I think everyone appreciates what a difficult job the probation service does, and how overstretched it is in supervising serious criminals. I believe that it has been hamstrung by changes in its management and structure, which have reduced its effectiveness.

May we have a statement on the Chagos islanders in the light of today's High Court decision in their favour? Some of us think that they have been treated appallingly by this Government. We should have a statement on the consequences of that judgment.

Finally, there is the business of tracking Ministers—knowing whether the Health Minister has resigned, whether the farms Minister has resigned, and what on earth the Deputy Prime Minister does. Perhaps we should be given a weekly bulletin in the form of a written statement from the Prime Minister. That would concentrate at least the Prime Minister's mind on what exactly his Ministers are doing.

I look forward to a relationship with the hon. Gentleman: whether it will be close is another matter. As he will know, I have slightly different feelings from others about Liberal Democrats.

I say modestly that no one is more committed to an international arms trade treaty than I am. It was a proposal of mine that I pursued before the general election, and it was an election manifesto commitment. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is committed to pursuing this issue, which we certainly need to debate at some stage; I will look into the matter.

As to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's attending the United Nations small arms review conference, I was not due to attend it because the attendance is to be of a different level, but I will pass on to her the hon. Gentleman's question and ask her to respond to it.

On the BBC charter and licence fee, I understand the need to debate those matters. I will look into the matter.

On the probation service and the report on the killing by Anthony Rice, who was released on life licence, this is an appalling case and our thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and community of Naomi Bryant. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will study the report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation on the circumstances of this killing for key recommendations, final recommendations and relevant practice recommendations, in order to determine the changes to procedures and systems that will need to be made. My right hon. Friend promises to make a statement to the House as soon as he is in a position to do so.

May we have a debate on the problems that people are experiencing in getting to Wales? If they do not have cash in their pockets, they are forced to travel the long way round, through Gloucester, because current legislation prohibits the use of credit and debit cards at the Severn crossing. Allowing people to pay with such cards would enable them more easily to access the wonderful delights of Wales, and improve trade. On a more serious note, a number of women have had to hunt the byways and back-ways of England late at night to find a cash machine in order to pay to cross the Severn. Allowing payment by card would greatly help those of us who need to travel to Wales regularly.

Of course I will follow that up—it sounds bizarre. I am afraid that I have not had that much recent experience of travelling to Wales, but I have much—

That is your next job.

I am from Essex, so I am afraid that I am completely unqualified to be Secretary of State for Wales. On the other hand, these days, perhaps that qualifies me. I use the M6 toll road, the Birmingham bypass, almost weekly, so I have plenty of experience of the issue to which my hon. Friend refers, and although it is not me who makes the payment—the man in front does so—I am damn sure that credit and debit cards can be used. I will follow up the matter with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales, because we need to sort it out quickly.

The Leader of the House has doubtless seen the report issued this week by the Ministry of Defence on Army installations in Northern Ireland. We need to debate this issue, for the simple reason that the people west of the Bann will have no Army presence at all—they will lose it completely. The headquarters of the IRA dissidents is located in that area, and they are very active in that community. People are very alarmed at the prospect of losing the Army installations entirely, and closure of the Army barracks in Ballymena, in my own constituency, has also been proposed. We need also to address the question of employment. I wish the Leader of the House well in his new job, and I hope that he will think of Ballymena and of the constituents whom I represent.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I look forward to working with him. I of course understand the anxiety felt in Ballymena, where a 15-year-old lad was killed recently in an absolutely appalling murder. I appreciate that this is a very sensitive issue for the community whom the right hon. Gentleman represents. I understand that the decision has been taken on the basis of the military requirement to ensure that the Ministry of Defence fully meets the needs of the future long-term garrison based in Northern Ireland, so that the military can provide the residual support needed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland for as long as it is required, and that the garrison is structured as efficiently as possible to achieve value for money for the defence budget. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has already made his views known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I will of course pass on his renewed representations following this exchange.

As a north-west MP, the Leader of the House may be aware what a great, family-friendly football club Morecambe is. I was at the ground on Sunday and the atmosphere was tremendous: there were old people, young people and children. This is a club that really reaches out to the community and does a lot with the town's youth. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Morecambe FC all the best for its match tonight to gain entry to the football league, and look out for an early-day motion that I hope to table, congratulating the club on its success?

I do indeed send my very best wishes to Morecambe, whose family-friendly policies have, I know, been modelled on those of Blackburn Rovers. If, like Accrington Stanley, Morecambe succeed in getting into the football league, a disproportionately high number of football clubs in the various divisions— including the championship and the premiership—will come from the geographical county of Lancashire. That is a great testament to Lancashire's sporting prowess, among other things.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment, and I very much hope that he will continue to exercise in his new role the independence of thought that he exercised in his previous one—even if that was the reason why he was moved. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has been relieved of his departmental duties, may we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why he has given the Deputy Prime Minister special exemption from paying tax on the benefits in kind that he continues to enjoy?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just been in the House, so I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not find an opportunity to put that question to him.

It was not on the Order Paper.

That must have been the first occasion in the whole time that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has been here—since 1997—that an issue's not being on the Order Paper has constrained him from asking a question on it. He is losing his touch in that regard. However, I will pass the point on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. Has he recently experienced travelling in the north-east of England? If so, he will have noticed that the region has not a single three-lane motorway, and that the 40 miles of two-lane motorway that we do have are not even linked to the rest of the motorway system. That is severely restricting attempts to revive the region's economy and, combined with the Highways Agency's restrictive practices, is causing much difficulty in the region. May we have an early debate on regional transport infrastructure, and if not, a statement on how the Government intend to address the serious and continuing transport problems in the north-east?

I am in the north-east a lot, and although this was not an issue that much engaged me as Foreign Secretary, now that my hon. Friend mentions it, I realise that there are no three-lane motorways in that region. None the less, the problems that the transport infrastructure in the north-east, as elsewhere in the country, has to face are a consequence of high levels of economic growth and, therefore, of much greater transport movement. He will know that there has been a dramatic turnaround since 1997 in the economy, employment levels and economic activity, and a real rejuvenation in areas such as his. That said, I will of course pass on the point that he makes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

When can we expect the regulations giving effect to the parliamentary boundary changes?

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised this issue with me in an informal conversation yesterday. It is a matter for the Boundary Commission and, speaking from memory, I understand that it has until next spring at the latest to produce the order. I promise the House that the order will be laid as quickly as possible after that, because it is in the interests of Members in all parts of the House that we achieve certainty about boundaries as soon as we can. As I told the right hon. Lady, my office is pursuing the matter with the secretary of the Boundary Commission, and as soon as I know when the order will be produced, the House will know.

I join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post. Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by several constituents who have very real concerns about the new Home Office guidelines covering non-EU doctors working in the UK. This is of particular concern in Dundee, which has one of the largest teaching hospitals in Europe. It is generally accepted that there will be less need to import staff as the number of UK-born staff increases, but I fear that the guidelines have been rushed through without due cognisance of the concerns of relevant organisations such as the British Medical Association. May we have an early debate to allow hon. Members to discuss those issues, and perhaps persuade the Home Office and the Department of Health to think again, or at least engage in further consultation?

I remind my hon. Friend that Health questions will take place next Tuesday. I am glad that he acknowledges that because of the dramatic increase in the number of UK-trained doctors—and those trained in the EU—the demand for doctors trained outside the EU is bound to fall. That has led to the change of policy. That said, I pay tribute to the huge contribution that overseas doctors have made to the running of the health service. My own doctor when I was a child came from India—and that was in suburban Essex—so I acknowledge their contribution. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary are also fully aware of that contribution. I looked into the issue for constituency reasons and I thought that the change of regulations was reasonable, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friends.

May we have an urgent statement on the biocides directive? It was agreed in 2000, with a 10-year period for implementation, but one consequence has been a soar in the cost of the chemicals used by undertakers in the embalming process. There is some concern about gold-plating, but representations may have to be made to the EU. The embalmers of Poole demand it.

Gold-plating was the first issue that I pursued the day I got to the Foreign Office five years ago, and I have been very concerned about it. A statement may not be necessary, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, the former Leader of the House, to follow that up. Even when there has been no gold-plating, the way in which some directives are followed is a matter of concern, and we need to have a more practical common-sense approach to them.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position, and I ask him to do even more than the previous Leader of the House to try to arrange a debate on early-day motion 1531 on the abolition of the Post Office card.

[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.]

More than half the Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have now signed that early-day motion, and it was a big issue in the local elections. I ask my right hon. Friend for a statement, before the pensioners parliament meets next week in Blackpool, making a commitment that the Post Office card account will not be abolished. May we have a debate in this Chamber on the issue as soon as possible?

I thank my hon. Friend for her good wishes, which are particularly well received by me, because we have known each other for almost 40 years—

Condi will be upset.

As my right hon. Friend says.

I know that the Post Office card account is a matter of concern and I suggest that my hon. Friend apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. Although it was an issue on the doorstep in her constituency, it could not have been so great an issue, because the Labour party did brilliantly in Lambeth, especially in her constituency, in taking seats from the Liberal Democrats and winning control of Lambeth borough council.

In a book published this morning called "Where the Truth Lies", an essay by a Labour Member of Parliament alleges that a peerage was offered to the publisher at Heinemann as an inducement not to publish "Spycatcher". In Tony Benn's diaries, he mentions a Labour MP being offered a peerage as an inducement not to stand for election to this House. The more I discover, the more concerned I am about such practices, which are offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The fact that such practices are possible compromises Parliament severely. May we have a debate on this matter, and a moratorium on further appointments to the Lords until the system is beyond reproach? Or should we just continue to ignore it, like ostriches, with the very real possibility of corruption in our midst?

The hon. Gentleman must be pretty desperate if he has to drag up ancient history and go back to "Spycatcher", which dates back, I think, to 1976—[Hon. Members: "1986."] Well, it was 20 years ago. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but in case he has not noticed I remind him that there was a Government of a different complexion in office at that time. Very important changes have been made, with all-party support, to the manner of appointing Members of the other place. Those changes are transparent and they are followed—he knows that and the House knows that. He needs to accept that and not make completely unwarranted allegations against Members of Parliament.

Last Friday I met the community friendship group in my constituency, who quizzed me on the progress of the draft Mental Health Bill. Can my right hon. Friend reveal the timetable for the Bill?

I should own up to the fact that the Mental Health Bill was my idea as Home Secretary—

What goes around, comes around.

Indeed. I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) an answer off the top of my head, but I will make an answer—I mean, I will find the answer and give it to her.

The Leader of the House has moved from a very important job to an equally important job—seeking to maintain this cradle of democracy. He will appreciate that Members on both sides of the House would like opportunities to debate in the House vital, important and current issues. Will he seek to ensure that Back Benchers have greater say in how the time of the House is spent and, once or twice a month perhaps, may we debate issues that are of critical importance not only to the House but to the country?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I share his view about the importance of this job. As I said in my first outing as Leader of the House on Tuesday, I have many distinguished predecessors who have held this title and this portfolio having held equally distinguished portfolios in other respects. On the issue that he raises, I know—because I met him shortly after my appointment—how strongly he feels about the establishment of a business Committee for the House. I will look at the proposal carefully, although I was not aware of it until last Friday when I got the job. I have not made up my mind, and I will discuss it with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee before pursuing the matter.

On the specific issue of whether we should revert to the previous arrangement of ballots for private Members' motions as well as ballots for private Members' Bills, I recall that that was the arrangement when I came into the House. It meant that every Friday in a Session was a sitting Friday, and there were no constituency Fridays. The House made a decision about that, but we have also had the introduction of Westminster Hall, which has made a huge difference and greatly expanded the time for holding Ministers to account. In any case, I will consider the proposal.

I offer my congratulations to the Leader of the House and wish him well in his new duties. Will he arrange for a debate on London in the near future, especially after the recent local election results, which highlighted the dissatisfaction across London with Labour councils and the Labour Government? We always used to have a debate in the Chamber on London every Session, and I urge him to arrange one in the near future.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He can make whatever he wants of the Conservatives' relative success in the local elections. I must point out, however, that I forgot to mention in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that the Conservatives, too, lost a seat in Lambeth, as they did to Labour in Blackburn.

I asked about a debate on London.

Yes, I remember the debates on London. There is insufficient time for all the debates requested. There is also an issue about how long the House wants to sit and whether it wants to sit on a Friday. That is not a problem for me, but it may be for other Members.

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. I assume that this week he saw the announcement from the Health Minister about the intention to bring maximum waiting times down to 18 weeks by 2008. I was, however, slightly concerned to read from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People that the 18-week waiting time will not apply to hearing services. That is bad news for people who are applying for a digital hearing aid, particularly the hardest of hearing who currently have an analogue hearing aid, and so go to the bottom of the queue when applying for a digital hearing aid. Could he arrange for a debate in this House on those matters, to give credit to the Government for getting waiting times down to 18 weeks, and to look at whether we can extend that to hearing services?

Health questions take place on Tuesday and that is the appropriate time to pursue the matter. I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned all the improvements in the health service that have taken place under this Government. One of the many reasons why I am so pleased to do this job is that it gives me an opportunity to talk about the Government's record and the dramatic way in which we have improved the health service. Yes, there are problems and there will always be problems. Now we have 85,000 more nurses, 32,000 more doctors and a huge increase in investment. As everybody knows, that benefits every constituency. Notwithstanding some of the problems, there have been dramatic improvements in the health care being delivered. It is a testament to the success of our policies. Just to mention Blackburn once again—I spent 18 years in Opposition, receiving letters from Health Ministers saying that they would provide us with money for a new hospital; the only problem was that the cheque never came. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) ensured that the cheque was delivered within a year of Labour taking office, and that £140 million hospital is now close to completion.

I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. Even in my time in the House he is not the first to make the transition from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House. Indeed, if he is looking for a role model, he could do a lot worse than look to the late Robin Cook.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement about the Government's role in the decision to deprive post offices of the right to sell television licences over the counter and give the contract to PayPoint? This gives rise to an acute situation in my constituency, where we have only five PayPoint outlets. In Orkney they are in the main towns and in Shetland we have only one. There is no provision in the outlying districts of the mainlands or in any of the outer isles. Surely if people are to be allowed to buy television licences over the counter, that facility should be available to my constituents as well as to those on the mainland and in urban areas.

We have always accepted that there needs to be special provision for the isles, and I will ensure that that particular point is pursued with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I, too, have looked into this, and there are two reasons why the BBC—not the Government—decided to let the contract to a private company rather than to the Post Office. First, it estimated that tens of millions of pounds would be saved from the costs of collection, which could be spent on programming. Secondly, it wished to see a new system of collection of the television licence fee, which had more, not fewer, points of sale, and could be used on Sundays and at night. I gather that the new system will provide that.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. It is good that normal humour will be resumed. I completely concur with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on the need for a debate on Iran.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 2131 in my name?

[That this House applauds the signing of a peace settlement between the major rebel group the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the government of Sudan on 5th May 2006; welcomes the intervention of the Rt. Hon. Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn, and the US Deputy Secretary of State, Robert Zoellick, in the mediation process that led to the settlement; recognises the peace settlement to be a positive step towards ending a conflict that has displaced a population of over two million and caused the death of more than 180,000 people; cautions against excessive optimism as the peace settlement is but a first step, agreed to in part by the major rebel movement, SLM, and rejected by the other two rebel movements; and urges that in order for the settlement to bear long term peaceful solution to the Darfur conflict the two parties need to commit genuinely to an end to the conflict and that the international community, especially the UK Government, must continue to put pressure on the parties to honour their pledges, pursue opportunities to include the other rebel groups within the peace process and provide sufficient funding for the African Union and for the humanitarian aid effort.]

It draws attention to the peace settlement in Darfur. It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development present. It is important that we pay attention to the work that he and Robert Zoellick did in bringing forward a peace settlement. It is crucial that all parties now sign it, and that that part of the world gets the peace that it desperately needs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I echo his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Knowing this subject as I do, I have no doubt that but for his attendance and that of Robert Zoellick, the Deputy Secretary from the US State Department, this peace deal would not have been achieved. It is an example of active diplomacy by a senior Minister in the British Government. What we now must do, as my right hon. Friend said in the Cabinet this morning, is ensure that the peace deal is implemented—a bigger challenge—and accepted by all sides.

I extend to the right hon. Gentleman my best wishes on his new post. May I drag him back to a recollection from his last existence when he was helpfully dealing with a case for me relating to Nassima Sadia—a young girl who was abducted from Belfast by her Algerian father? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the torment of her mother and the difficulties with those who are not signatories to the Hague convention on international child abduction. Could we have a debate in the House about those issues and the steps that the Government can take and have taken in such cases, where clearly there is considerable anguish and concern in the families involved?

Of course I remember the case that the hon. Gentleman raised with me. I followed it up and responded quickly to him on the concerns of this terrible story. I promise that I will discuss the matter personally with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. There is no argument between our parties about what needs to be done. The issue is about how we pursue foreign Governments who have either not signed up to the Hague convention or, where they have, are not implementing it. I promise the hon. Gentleman and the family whom he represents so assiduously that this will be followed up, and I am happy to talk to him afterwards about it.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the 7 July bombings.

I am today publishing the official account of the bombings in London on 7 July last year. Also today the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on intelligence aspects of the bombings has been published, together with the Government's response. I very much regret the sombre nature of my first statement to the House as Home Secretary. I send my condolences, as the new Home Secretary, to all those who suffered in those events and I pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).

The official account published today summarises what we know about the bombers and how and why they did what they did. It is not yet a complete picture, both because we have had to withhold some information for legal and security reasons and because the police investigation is continuing and we may discover more. It will be for the legal process to confirm formally what happened, but as is now well known, there were four suicide attacks carried out by four British citizens. Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. Those attacks killed 52 people over and above the bombers themselves and injured over 700.

The first three bombs went off simultaneously at 8.50 am on the underground. The first, in a Circle line tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations, was carried out by Tanweer and killed seven people and injured 171. The second, on the Circle line just outside Edgware Road, was carried out by Khan and killed six people and injured 163. The third, on the Piccadilly line between King's Cross and Russell Square, was carried out by Lindsay and killed 26 and injured over 340.

Just under an hour later at 9.47 am, Hussain detonated the fourth device on a No. 30 bus in Tavistock square. This killed 13 and injured over 110. It remains unclear why Hussain did not detonate his bomb at the same time as the others. It may be that he was frustrated by delays on the underground heading north from King's Cross. However, it now appears that he bought a battery after coming out of the underground system, which could mean that he had difficulty detonating the device earlier. But I stress that this remains speculation at this point.

We now know from CCTV footage and witness statements that Khan, Tanweer, and Hussain travelled down from Leeds in a hire car that morning and met up with Lindsay in Luton station car park. Further devices were found in one of the cars which may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey down. They do not appear to indicate a fifth bomber and there is no evidence to suggest this elsewhere. The four then travelled from Luton to King's Cross, leaving at 7.40 am and arriving at 8.23 am.

Owing to some outstanding police and security service work in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, the police were able publicly to confirm the identities of Tanweer and Hussain on 14 July and Khan and Lindsay on 16 July. The key factors leading them to this were finding credit and other cards in the names of the four at the sites—in Khan's case his cards were found at more than one site—Hussain's family calling the police emergency hotline reporting him missing, and subsequently discovering that he had travelled to London with Khan and Tanweer; the discovery by the security service that Khan, and subsequently Tanweer, had been picked up on the periphery of another investigation; the CCTV images of four men with rucksacks matching their descriptions at King's Cross and Luton; and the discovery of the two cars in Luton car park.

Khan, Tanweer and Hussain were all second-generation British citizens of Pakistani origin from the same small area of Leeds. Lindsay was a British citizen of Jamaican origin who had grown up in Huddersfield and moved to Aylesbury after his marriage. Khan was a well-respected teaching assistant and youth worker, aged 30 at the time of the bombings. Tanweer, who was just 22, had recently left university. Hussain was only 18 and had just completed sixth form college, and Lindsay, who was 19, had left school and had a series of odd jobs thereafter.

The account which is published today sets out what we know about their early lives and how they may have been radicalised. The picture remains incomplete at this stage, but, with the partial exception of Lindsay, there is little that marks them out as particularly vulnerable to radicalisation and little in their subsequent behaviour which could have given much indication to those around them of their intentions. It is not yet known whether others in the UK were involved in indoctrinating the group or helping them to plan, but Lindsay appears to have been influenced by an extremist preacher who is now serving a prison sentence. Their motivation appears to have been a mixture of anger at perceived injustices by the west against Muslims and a desire for martyrdom.

The account that we publish today also details what we know about influence from abroad. Khan is known to have made a number of trips to Pakistan, including one in July 2003 when he is believed to have had some relevant training. Khan and Tanweer travelled together to Pakistan between November 2004 and February 2005 and are assessed as likely to have met al-Qaeda figures during this visit. There were a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings. We do not know their content. Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for launching the attacks, but the extent of its involvement is unclear.

Shortly after the second Pakistan trip—the trip from November 2004 to February 2005—the group appear to have begun planning in earnest. They appear to have assembled the devices at 18 Alexandra grove, a flat in another part of Leeds. As far as experts can establish, the bombs were made with ingredients that are readily commercially available, and to have required only limited expertise to assemble. The operation appears to have been self-financed and the cash raised by methods that would be extremely difficult to identify as related to terrorism or other serious criminality. Our best estimate is that the operation cost less than £8,000 overall.

The account published today does not address the emergency response, but it is right that I should place on record my thanks and admiration for the bravery of so many—the police, those working on the underground, buses and trains, medical staff, firefighters, disaster recovery teams, volunteers and ordinary people, including and perhaps especially the survivors. The Government have separately conducted a lessons learned exercise addressing many aspects of the emergency response, and we will publish the results shortly. The London Assembly's inquiry, due to report soon, is also considering this.

I now turn to the Intelligence and Security Committee report. The Committee is, of course, independent of Government, but it has had access to a wide range of highly classified documents. Its report assesses what was known prior to July, how the threat level and alert state systems operated, how the threat was assessed, and issues of coverage, resources and co-operation between the security and intelligence agencies and between the agencies and the police. The House will obviously wish to give it serious consideration. The Prime Minister has presented to Parliament today the Government's response to the report, which generally welcomes its conclusions.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), as Chairman of the Committee, has spoken in more detail about the report this morning, but I note first that the report sets out that the security service had come across two of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, on the margins of other investigations. On the basis of what was then known, the security service made the judgement that they were peripheral to the main investigation and there was no intelligence to suggest that they were separately interested in planning an attack against the UK. Although limited attempts were made at that stage to identify the two men, the security service decided to concentrate its resources on higher priorities, including plots known at that time to attack the UK. The ISC report concludes that this decision was understandable.

Secondly, the report concludes that it was not unreasonable to reduce the country threat level from "severe general" to "substantial" in May last year on the grounds that there was no intelligence of a current credible plot to attack the UK at that time.

The term "substantial" still represented a high level of threat, and the report concludes that that reduction was unlikely to have altered the alertness of the responders or to have affected the chances of preventing the 7 July attacks. None the less, the Committee recommends changes to the system. The Government have reviewed it and will be making changes to create a simpler, more flexible and more proportionate system.

The report makes a number of other useful recommendations, which we have addressed in the Government response. It also covers the issue of resourcing, which I will address in a moment. I am grateful to the Committee for its very thorough and constructive approach.

What the official account and the ISC report demonstrate is the very real challenge that the police and the agencies face in combating this new kind of terrorism. The bombers were ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views, far less of violent intention. At least three were apparently as well integrated as anyone else. Their radicalisation, to the extent that we know how and where it happened, appears to have been conducted away from places with any obvious association with extremism.

The willingness of the men to use suicide bombing as their method and to attack vulnerable, civilian targets—as is familiar from previous attacks—made them doubly difficult to defend against. That is not a comfortable message, but it is important that we are honest about it if we are to defend ourselves against the threat effectively.

The key lesson—this is at the heart of the Government's counter-terrorist strategy—is that the response needs to be collective, with Government, Parliament, police, agencies, local communities, faith leaders and international co-operation all playing their part, and that it needs to be completely comprehensive.

We have a counter-terrorism strategy for achieving that, known as "Contest", which aims to reduce the risk from international terrorism. As part of the strategy, we are seeking to prevent terrorism by stopping young people being indoctrinated into extremist violence. In that, we need the help of Muslim leaders and the community to fight the distortion of Islam that turns young people into terrorists. We have taken new powers to criminalise encouragement to terrorism. We need to work together to show that democracy is the only legitimate means of changing policies, and to ensure that all young people in all communities can see how engagement in British society can bring about change for the better. I know that my predecessor as Home Secretary led an extensive round of consultations with all sections of the Muslim community, and I intend to develop that.

Secondly, we need an effective and adequately resourced law enforcement and intelligence effort. The ISC report suggests that we might have had a better chance of preventing the July attacks if more resources had been in place sooner. Even that, of course, would have been no guarantee of preventing the attack. The Government have put in substantially increased resources, particularly since 9/11. Further resources were provided last autumn. The Security Service is expanding as fast as its top management believes is organisationally possible.

The specific police budget for counter-terrorism will have grown fourfold between the financial years 2002-03 and 2007-08—that is, in the period after 9/11. We have allocated £30 million extra next year and £60 million the year after to expand special branch and other specialist counter-terrorism capacity outside London. Indeed, the total cross-Government budget for counter-terrorism and resilience has more than doubled, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion in the same period.

In addition, general policing makes a significant contribution to the counter-terrorist effort. We will implement neighbourhood policing in all forces by next April and will expand the number of community support officers from around 6,500 to 16,000 in that period. That will improve our capacity to gather local intelligence to support the counter-terrorist element.

In that context, I want to put it on the record that the police and agencies have disrupted many attacks against the UK since 9/11, including three since last July alone. However, the reality is that difficult choices have to be made between priorities in intelligence-led operations, whatever the level of resources.

Thirdly, we need effective international co-operation. This is both a local and a global threat. We are a long way from being the only targets. As the House will know, there have been appalling attacks in the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and Indonesia, to name but a few. We need to have the closest possible law enforcement and intelligence links with our many allies in the war against global terrorism.

We also need rapidly to develop European co-operation. The former Home Secretary made that his key priority for the UK presidency last year. He achieved important concrete outcomes, including common provisions on the retention of telecommunications data that will make it more difficult for terrorists to communicate across borders to plan their crimes. I will make it a major priority of mine to develop that co-operation further.

The bombings were despicable attacks on ordinary people going about their normal daily business. It is a tribute to Londoners—the people of our capital city—that the city recovered with such remarkable speed. The victims have shown tremendous courage in rebuilding their lives, but I know that many victims, and particularly bereaved families, are still trying to find their own way to come to terms with what, for them, was a terrible personal tragedy. I think that it is right that we try to explain what the Government know about what happened that day, and I hope that many of the victims will find the account that we have published today helpful.

I know that some will find it painful to relive those terrible events again, and that some will continue to feel that there should be a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for supporting victims. In the short period that I have been Home Secretary, and before that, she has explained to me the strong views that some of the families hold on that subject. I find that perfectly understandable, but the House will know that my predecessor as Home Secretary explained last year why the Government had decided that it was not right to hold such an inquiry a decision with which I concur. However, I should like to offer some further explanation to those most directly affected.

I shall therefore be writing to all those who were bereaved by the 7 July attacks to offer them the chance to come and talk the issue through. I and my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary will convene a series of meetings, at which families will be able to ask detailed questions about the documents that have been published today. At those meetings, I hope that I will be able to explain to them why I do not think a public inquiry would be the best step to take. Not least among the reasons is that such an inquiry would involve diverting very precious resources needed for the security and protection of everyone, at a critical time.

As Home Secretary, my principal duty is to protect the public. I am determined that we will learn the lessons from the official account and ISC report, and strengthen our defences against the terrorist threat, but international terrorism will not be defeated by the security services, the police or the Government acting alone. It will be beaten only by all of us in this country working together to defeat what is a threat to us all. That is what all of us must achieve together.

I welcome the Home Secretary to his new post, and I am sorry that his first outing is on such a tragic subject. I join him in offering our condolences to those who suffered in the attacks and our thanks to and admiration for those whose bravery and commitment on the day and afterwards saved so many lives.

The issue before us is, as the Home Secretary implied, of great importance. The attacks in London on 7 July and 21 July were attacks on our people, our country and our way of life. Accordingly, our ability to deal with such attacks and to learn from our errors is critical to the defence of the realm, our people and our way of life.

It is important to start by acknowledging the real strengths of our security services, which have thwarted a significant number of attacks. For that, the whole House thanks and congratulates them. However, it will not serve them or the safety of the British public if we do not learn from the mistakes made in these cases, the better to prevent them in the future.

During the attack and in the immediate aftermath, the Government claimed that the bombers were previously unknown to the authorities, because they had no record of previous criminal or terrorist activity. We now know that that is untrue. Both Sidique Khan and Shezad Tanweer were known to the authorities in connection with another very serious terrorist bomb plot. On the basis of accounts in the newspapers, rather than the reports, it appears that Shezad Tanweer was picked up by a foreign intelligence agency one month before the attack, but that that information was never acted on by the UK security services, so I ask the Home Secretary whether that is true. Again on the basis of documentation given to newspapers rather than these reports, it seems that MI5 taped Mohammad Sidique Khan talking about his wish to fight in the jihad and saying his goodbyes to his family—a clear indication that he was intending a suicide mission. The newspapers also tell us that he was known to have attended late-stage discussions on planning another major terror attack that was subsequently thwarted. Again, I ask the Home Secretary whether that is true.

Despite all that, the surveillance on Khan was called off months before the attack. Why? Was it, as intimated in the Intelligence and Security Committee report, because of a shortage of resources? Is it true that there were not enough MI5 agents to cover possible suspects and that that led to surveillance of dangerous terrorists being terminated on that occasion? The ISC report states that

"better appreciation of the speed and scale with which the threat against the UK could develop might have led the Services to achieve a step change in capacity earlier".

Did that occur because the resources for MI5 were not increased to meet the necessary step change until 2004, some three years after 9/11? And, because it takes three years to recruit, screen and train agents, the expansion will not take full effect until 2008.

Two of the bombers went to terrorist training camps in Pakistan and undertook weapons training, as the Home Secretary mentioned in his statement. Paragraph 75(e) of the official account is very vague on that matter. It is said that the British intelligence agencies did not obtain any usable information on these people's activities from the Pakistani intelligence services. Why did that happen?

We are also told—the Home Secretary alluded to it—that Khan and Tanweer met al-Qaeda leaders and discussed jihad with them. How, then, can the Government represent these people as members of an independent freelance group? If they are, how did al-Qaeda get a copy of Khan's suicide video in order to splice on to it its own propaganda, which involved its second most important member, before it was broadcast in September?

I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has done a remarkable job with his Committee, which produced an extremely insightful report, as the Home Secretary recognised. Having said that, although the Intelligence and Security Committee is impartial, wise and of the highest integrity, it is constitutionally limited in what it can achieve. That is partly because of the limitation on its investigative resources, partly because of its remit and partly because it is constituted in such a way as to be entirely dependent on the intelligence agencies for its information and on their willingness to disclose such information.

The process has, frankly, raised more questions than answers. After the 9/11 tragedy, the United States Senate had a very well resourced and independent report with very hard-hitting conclusions. After Madrid, the Spanish Government had an independent report and learned serious lessons from it. In this country, after the Falklands war, even though secret intelligence issues were at stake, we had the independent Franks report. Almost every previous major intelligence failure was dealt with by an independent inquiry, but I am afraid that that is not what we have today in the official account, which expresses the Government's view rather than an independent view. As a result, the process has left too many questions unresolved.

In the interests of people who have lost their lives and of protecting those who have not, can we now have what we should have had from the start—a fully resourced independent inquiry into what was clearly a major failure of our intelligence systems?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. I, too, regret the fact that we are dealing with such a sombre subject on my first outing as Home Secretary. May I assure him of our willingness to learn? I do not regard this as a party political issue: it is one that unites the nation in the desire to protect ourselves and our citizens and to learn. If necessary, we shall learn from each other, and I stand ready to do that.

Let me deal with the matter of process first. The right hon. Gentleman somewhat underestimates the scope, integrity and intrusiveness of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

indicated dissent.

No, not the integrity; the right hon. Gentleman did not question that, but he felt that the ISC was limited by statute and so forth.

I merely point out, in the same spirit of generosity with which he welcomed me, that the scope, remit and statute under which the ISC was established was defined not by this Government, but by the Conservative Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. Secondly, the reason for public inquiries, including the Franks inquiry, prior to the establishment of the ISC, was precisely because of the absence of such a scrutiny Committee. It was appropriate for the ISC to be given the task. It is independent of the Government and values its independence. To the best of my knowledge, it has been given as much assistance, aid and leeway as possible, and I believe that it has produced a very useful report.

Let me turn to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. It was legitimate for him to raise them, and I will answer insofar as I can, without intruding into areas that affect operational matters. His first point was about several newspaper stories on the four bombers. As to the Tanweer story, relating to what happened a month before 7/7, I am told by the Security Service that it has no record of that allegation, so I do not think that there is a factual basis to it.

What is known is that there was some peripheral intelligence on two of the bombers in connection with another investigation. So far as I can understand from paragraph 45, on page 14, from all the relevant intelligence material and from the independent scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a judgment was made on whether the actions and assessments of the Security Service were understandable and correct at the time. The report confirms that the Security Service came across two individuals, who were subsequently identified as Khan and Tanweer, on the peripheries of another investigation. However, I should mention three heavy caveats.

First, it was only after 7 July that the Security Service was able fully to identify the two men, given the massive concentration of resources then transferred. Secondly, there was no intelligence at the time that these men were interested in planning an attack on the UK in the UK. That is specifically alluded to on page 13, in paragraph 43 of the ISC report. Thirdly, the intelligence at the time did indeed suggest a focus, but either on training and insurgency operations outside the country in Pakistan, in which the men might be interested, or on fraud. In relation to the investigation at the time, it was peripheral to what was regarded as a bigger and more important operation. It is in that light, on that important subject—I accept that it is an important and legitimate one for the right hon. Gentleman to raise—that the ISC says

"we conclude that, in the light of the other priority investigations being conducted and the limitations on Security Service resources, the decisions not to give greater investigative priority to these two individuals were understandable".

Incidentally, officers followed up a report on the third bomber, Jermaine Lindsay, because again there was a peripheral connection to another case—of aggravated burglary—but it was only established later that the contact telephone number was on file.

I dealt with that matter in some measure, because the right hon. Gentleman raised an important point. I shall turn to resources, which he also mentioned. I covered them earlier, but in the period after 9/11 until 2007-08, there has been a quadrupling of the resources available to the police and counter-terrorism. In the same period, across Government, there has been a doubling of resources for counter-terrorism and resilience, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion. At any given stage, there are physical limitations on what can be achieved, because of difficulties in recruitment, skills identification, training and so on. It is not merely a matter of applying resources and bringing in lots of people without relevant skills.

Let me give two quotes. The director general of the Security Service told the ISC:

"What we are trying to do is the maximum we think we can bear in terms of recruitment, training, vetting, expansion, scale, new officers, a big northern operations centre...it is a very challenging programme."

In other words, according to the director general, the limitations are not the resources being allocated but the fact that the service cannot expand any faster.

At paragraph 140 of the report, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, C, said:

"If you try to bring in more than a certain number of new people every year you can literally bust the system...you can only tolerate a certain number of inexperienced people dealing with very sensitive subjects."

On al-Qaeda, there are circumstantial links, some of which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out: the recording of the video, the Khan reference to al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility and so on. There are assumptions and speculations about contacts. The ISC report says:

"The extent to which the 7 July attacks were externally planned directed or controlled by contacts in Pakistan or elsewhere remains unclear."

That is what I said at the beginning. The matter is still under investigation. Yes, there is circumstantial evidence, but I do not think there is anything that would merit my saying at this stage that there is conclusive evidence that the attack was planned in advance rather than being claimed as a success afterwards, ex post facto, by al-Qaeda.

I, too, welcome the Home Secretary to his new position. As the gravity of the events being discussed shows, he occupies a position of enormous importance to the security and welfare of the country. I share, of course, in his and the other expressions of condolence extended to the victims and the families of victims of the horrific attack on 7 July last year. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement.

We welcome the Intelligence and Security Committee report. As has been said, it is a thorough, insightful and highly professional report and raises crucial questions about the resourcing and organisation of our security services. Its scrutiny of the system of threat level warnings must in particular be responded to swiftly in order to safeguard public confidence, as the Home Secretary acknowledged.

The report raises queries about the increase in resources demanded by and made available to the security services. It is always easy to be wise with hindsight, and I acknowledge what the Home Secretary has just said about the practical limitation of increasing resources too fast in too short a period. Notwithstanding those caveats, there seems to be some lingering reasonable doubt about whether resources were increased with sufficient speed before the events of last July, not least because we now know that the real step change in the increase of resources did not really kick in until late 2004.

Notwithstanding the quality of the ISC report, does the Home Secretary agree that it and the Home Office narrative on the events of 7 July that he set out today are by definition limited in scope and leave some of the most important questions unanswered? To deal with the new threat of home-grown terrorism, we need to do more to try to understand the nature of that threat. Surely, there is no logical reason why the right hon. Gentleman should resist calls for a public inquiry when such an inquiry could deal with issues not covered by the reports. It could help to foster public understanding about the evolution of home-grown terrorism in our cities and towns and thus help our intelligence services to target resources effectively in those cities and towns.

We strongly welcome the Government's organisation of seven working groups under the aegis of the preventing extremism together initiative, which reported last November. That was an important first step in helping to assess, analyse and tackle, in a collaborative approach with members of our Muslim communities, the complexity of home-grown fundamentalism in some of those communities. Would not a public inquiry help to pick up from where the initiative left off to promote the collective anti-terrorism effort that the Home Secretary rightly emphasised in his statement?

Finally, may I urge the Home Secretary to consider carefully the emphasis in the ISC report, at paragraph 137, on the crucial role of effective local policing in gathering intelligence to identify individuals and communities susceptible to the kind of fundamentalism that can lead to such horrific terrorist atrocities? Does not he accept that the headlong rush towards the regional merger of police authorities, more often than not against their will, risks uprooting the foundations of our local police exactly when we should be strengthening, not weakening, the value of local policing in our counter-terrorism strategy?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. On his last point, yes, local intelligence is obviously important. That is why we have about 13,000 more police officers on the beat and the number of community support officers is increasing to 16,000. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I decline his invitation to comment on another major issue, police restructuring, which I have not had the chance to look at—it has been a rather busy five days—but I accept the need for local intelligence.

The hon. Gentleman raised three other matters, the first of which was resources. He appeared to indicate that there was little increase in resources in the years after 2002 and that it was slanted towards the end of the period. Actually, if we consider counter-terrorist and resilience spending since 2001 by Department, across Government, the amounts are £923 million and £988 million, with £1,257 million immediately afterwards; the next figures are £1,479 million, £1.665 billion and £2.045 billion, so there has in fact been a steady cross-Government increase.

Although I fully accept that there will always be a demand for greater resources, Members should be cautious, as was the ISC, when talking about them. The paragraph in the report referring to resources begins with the following words:

"It could be argued (but it would be largely with hindsight)"—

the only exact science known to men and women is hindsight. The Committee phrased that paragraph very carefully; before saying that perhaps more resources could have helped, it noted that the observation was made "largely with hindsight".

I have one more point about resources. There has been a substantial increase, but even if resources were infinite, the truth of the matter in respect of intelligence is, as we must say constantly—and as the Butler inquiry pointed out—that even with unlimited resources we can never be 100 per cent. certain. We cannot predict the future. There is not 100 per cent. security, nor 100 per cent. predictability. Intelligence is, by its nature, a collection of fragmentary, partial, sometimes subjective and sometimes mistaken pieces of information, which must be put together by human judgment. So there is a matter of resources, but we should not pretend that, if then or in the future, we supplied infinite resources, we would have infinite wisdom about the future.

More briefly, on two things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the first was an inquiry, which is very important—I fully understand the concerns of the families of victims and those caught up in the attacks. I fully understand the questions that they have to ask about the trauma and the whos and whys of how this happened. All of us would understand that—it is a natural human reaction—and this week I have therefore carefully considered the call for a public inquiry, as did my predecessor, but it would mean a pretty massive reallocation and diversion of resources over an extended period if it was done. That is not just an inconvenience and an expense; it is a serious matter.

It would mean a reallocation of resources away from those needing protection at a critical time, when our security forces and security agencies are carrying out an absolutely essential job—the protection of people in this country—and in my judgment that diversion of resources would truly put others at risk to achieve an objective that can be achieved largely in other ways, which is why I am offering these meetings and reports. Of course, the Home Affairs Committee, the ISC, the London Assembly, the coroners and the ongoing criminal investigations, as well as our account, contribute towards that.

I agree entirely, however, with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need to engage the Muslim community. We need to work together in this country—every single one of us—because the threat is against every single one of us. In the aftermath of 7/7, we set in train both a short-term working programme of ministerial visits and then the longer-term actions in the Government's prevention delivery plan. I do not pretend that that is perfect, but it is the start of serious, prolonged and, I believe, in-depth engagement with the Muslim community in this country, because we need that.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his statement and for the narrative that he has provided, and the ISC for the report that it has provided; and we all look forward to the London Assembly's report on the response to the horrors of 7 July. Speaking as someone who represents the area in which the two worst atrocities took place, I think that it is necessary for us to accept that the activities of the security services will always be imperfect. It looks as though they had been geared largely to trying to trace connections to centrally organised atrocities, and we may have been caught out a little in the response to what might be described as semi-spontaneous local groups, which may have had vague connections—but that is a very difficult task.

We should remember in all this that the object of the people who support terrorism is to try to divide us one from another. When we are considering all the evidence that becomes available, we should remember that, whatever shortcomings may be revealed, it was not the security services, it was not the police, it was not Ministers and it was not the Opposition who actually exploded four suicide bombs; it was four suicide bombers who did the killing and maiming. What we must do is to concentrate on trying to ensure that we do not have any more of them. We should not spend our time pointing fingers at one another, when we did not do it.

I agree entirely with every word that my right hon. Friend has just said.

I start by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his position. We are old friends and counterparts, and I genuinely wish him the best of luck in what are difficult circumstances.

I simply refer the Home Secretary back to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I am of the opinion that, on balance, following the right hon. Gentleman's statement, we need a more independent inquiry. I recommend the report from the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), because it illustrates some of the weaknesses. Yes, the bombers are to blame absolutely, but we need to understand what has gone wrong, so that we can rectify it. In that spirit, I refer the Home Secretary to paragraphs 103 and 108, which suggest a complete misreading of some major issues internally in the UK—that of whether suicide bombings were ever likely to take place in the UK or Europe, when there was already evidence of the shoe bombers and others in Tel Aviv, and also the idea that home-grown terrorists were not a major issue for the UK. Again, the Committee quite rightly points out that there was a great deal of evidence to suggest that that was not the case and that we should have been concerned.

I am one who genuinely believes that we do this in the interests of the United Kingdom, our citizens and our friends, and of course, as a London MP, I include those who were devastated by the bombings. I urge the Home Secretary to think again about the inquiry, not because we want to point fingers, but because we desperately need to show the public that we have learned the lessons and that their security is paramount.

Of course, over the years, I have grown to respect the right hon. Gentleman's views on these matters. There are two different aspects. One of them is the natural, legitimate questions of the families themselves, and I am trying in consultation and co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to address some of them in meetings or through the account that we are giving today. The other one—the right hon. Gentleman points it out, and I accept it—is that we can always learn to improve the efficacy of our security services. I am not instantly persuaded that the best way to do that is with a public inquiry, but I will obviously want to talk, having read and reread the report, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is Chairman of the ISC, in the first instance. It is important to stress that the ISC is independent of the Government. There are people on it who would not sympathise with the Government on a range of issues but, on this one, share the same patriotic commitment—we would all do so—to protect our country. So I will undertake to hold discussions with my right hon. Friend to find out whether there are areas where we ought to ask his Committee perhaps to protrude a little further in intrusiveness to advise us.

rose—

Order. Obviously, these are very important and complicated matters, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. We have not got an unlimited amount of time. If we can now, please, have brief questions and perhaps reasonably brief answers from the Home Secretary, although it is a complicated matter, we can get as many Members in as possible.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. I also welcome his report and the meeting that he is suggesting we have to deal with the difficult issues about these tragic events. The thrust of his report is very similar to the Committee's report in that it talks about the new and considerable challenge that our country faces. The Committee recognised the substantial increase in resources that came to the intelligence service over the past number of years, but it also recognised that translating money into people and human resources was quite another matter. Finally, may I ask him to reflect on the points in the ISC's report that refer to the lessons that we can learn from the events of the past months and, indeed, the conclusions of his Committee's report, so that we can ensure that, in years to come, we can at least help to prevent such terrible attacks on our people?

Yes indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his work and that of his Committee. I assure him that I have already considered, and will continue to dwell on, some of the critical points that he has offered to us for consideration. There are points about the system of threat levels and alert states being confusing, the underplaying in the assessment of home-grown terrorism, the degree of failure to understand and apply strategic thinking to that, the limitations of intelligence not included in a sufficiently systematic way in intelligence assessments, and so on. I am well aware that we are talking about something that neither in its intention, nor in its outcome, reflects carte blanche agreement with everything that was done or with a whitewash. There are critical elements. That makes the general conclusions and the general commendations of what was done by the security services all the more pertinent and substantial.

May I particularly welcome the Government's response to the specific recommendations of the Committee that the threat level and alert state system arrangements need clarity, transparency and simplicity? When will the review that the Government say has been completed be published, and, more importantly, when will the recommendations be implemented? Does the Home Secretary agree that part of the confusion that arose between threat levels and alert states was due to the fact that, although the threat level was reduced, the alert states were not? The alert states are the ones that matter to the people on the ground. In particular, as far as London Transport was concerned, that alert state remained very high and was not reduced. Finally, there have been reports in the press over the past few days that, had different decisions been made about the priorities, this atrocity might have been avoided. Is not the other side of that coin that, had the resources been put into trying to prevent this atrocity, one of the other atrocities that was prevented could equally well have happened?

That is precisely the point. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That is also my worry about allocating and diverting resources towards a public inquiry. On his question about the threat level, I accept the recommendations of the Committee. As he will know, the difference between the two threat levels reflected whether there was knowledge of a specific threat at that time. "Substantial" is still a very high level of threat, but it meant that there was not specific knowledge at that time. As he said, that can be confusing. The response or readiness level was not automatically reduced, although the threat level came down. The reduced threat level indicated to experts that there was not a specific threat. However, to the man in the street, it could be taken to mean a reduction in operational capability. It did not mean that—thank goodness—on this occasion. I will undertake to review that and implement things as soon as possible, and to publish what I can, although I do not pretend that I can give a carte blanche that we will publish everything to do with threat levels.

As my right hon. Friend may know, I have been raising in this House for many years—long before 9/11—the activities of fundamentalist extremists. Although it is true that we should lay the blame for what happened fair and square on the four bombers, the extremists who indoctrinated four young, apparently decent men bear heavy responsibility for the hatred that they brought to them, which ultimately led to these terrible tragedies. We have to learn from experience. That is true not just of the security services, but in terms of how we approach the victims and the families of those who died and how we provide support after the event. When my right hon. Friend meets the victims and the bereaved families, will he make sure that hon. Members in whose constituencies those people live are invited to attend? Will he also ensure that the discussions consider not just whether there should be a public inquiry, but the reservations and concerns of those victims about the immediate support that they received after the event and the compensation arrangements?

On the compensation arrangements, I am aware of a potential contradiction. The events acted as a catalyst to a reconsideration of how to improve the compensation scheme, but, by precedent, compensation schemes are not retrospective. I know that that represents an incongruity and an apparent unfairness and so I am looking at the case of the July victims. It is an exceptional case, in my view, and I am considering whether something can be done exceptionally and what that might be. As I said, five days into the job I have not been able to fix every little issue that is in front of us, but I intend to do that.

On the meetings with the victims' families, I want to be as open as possible with them. I am open to all suggestions, but I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the ultimate decision will rest with the families themselves. Some of them may or may not want to have others present. Some may want to ask some pretty pertinent questions. I have to take into account the wishes of the families, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

In his statement, the Home Secretary said that, prior to the bombings, capacity was being expanded as fast as the top management believed was organisationally possible. However, with hindsight the Committee was able to discover—from what had been done after the bombings—that there had been room to do more and to do it more quickly. Perhaps the caution was understandable, but more could have been done. Will he indicate that he and his colleagues will continue to support the current expansion and will he reflect on the very odd judgement of the Joint Intelligence Committee that suicide bombing would not become the norm in European attacks?

I will reflect on both those points.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that no restrictions were placed on the access of the Intelligence and Security Committee to information, whether in the form of reports from the joint terrorism analysis centre or the Joint Intelligence Committee? That was also true of access to the heads of the agencies. It is a little unfortunate that, although the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) did not cast any doubt on the integrity of the members of the Committee, he sought to undermine the credibility of the conclusions that we arrived at and the material that we used. We had no restrictions placed on us. There were no no-go areas. I think that my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that that is why we were able to produce the conclusions that we did. They were closely related to the evidence that we examined.