Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows: MONDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Office of Communications Bill [Lords].

Motion to approve a money resolution on the Home Energy Conservation Bill.

TUESDAY 15 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.

WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "State of the Railways" followed by a debate entitled "The Crisis in the Care System". Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

THURSDAY 17 JANUARY—A debate on Bristol Royal infirmary on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 18 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Justice(Northern Ireland) Bill.

TUESDAY 22 JANUARY—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords]

THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 25 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Thursday 17 January will now be a debate on victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

I should also like to inform the House that, on Wednesday 16 January 2002, there will a debate on the sixth environmental action programme in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

In thanking the Leader, may I take this opportunity, if it is not too late, to wish him a happy new year?

May we have an urgent statement on a very serious allegation that has been raised today—what I would have to call the "cash for no question" issue? It would appear—I can scarcely believe this—that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) had a question down to the Prime Minister, but that the powers-that-be in the Government persuaded him to withdraw his question—which was going to be about the inadequacy of funding for a hospital in his constituency—with the promise of £200,000 additional funding for the hospital.

We are used to allegations about cash for questions, but the amount seems excessive, and to be an example of regrettable parliamentary inflation. Apparently, the going rate for the withdrawal by a Government Back Bencher of a question—presumably to avoid embarrassment to the Prime Minister—is £200,000. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that an urgent statement on this serious matter will be made—if not today, then tomorrow—because we need to get to the bottom of it and to be assured that the allegation is untrue. If it is true, we need to be told how the tactic can be justified.

I hope that the Leader of the House will also make provision for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House and explain his response to the unusually truthful statements from the Minister for Europe. Today's press report that Minister as saying:

"We have the worst railways in Europe.

We started transport investment far too late… We should have been more radical earlier."

I quote from The Sun, which the House knows has a direct line to No. 10, so we can rely on what it says. It states:

"Last night, a Government source"—

and we all know who that is—

"said: 'Peter Hain has finally coughed to what we have known for some time.

The transport system has been going to pot since the day Labour won power.

John Prescott, who told us for years what he would do to put it right, messed it up once he got the chance."'

These are serious matters, because not only is a Minister of State admitting finally that the railways have been put into a disgraceful condition by the Government—which we have known for some time—but a Government source is seeking to undermine the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask, therefore, for a statement, either from the Deputy Prime Minister or from the Minister for Europe. Otherwise, I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister, as it is obviously his man who has given this information to The Sun.

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for the new year. I am very happy to accept them, however late they may come in the course of the parliamentary Session. I shall observe only that it is plain that the Christmas and new year recess has in no way softened his approach to these exchanges, but I would have been surprised and disappointed if it had.

I have no insight into why my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) may not have asked his question. That is entirely a matter for him to decide. However, I am taken aback that the right hon. Gentleman should complain about a case in which an hon. Member, finding that an issue that he has raised has been satisfactorily resolved, decides not to continue to press that issue in the House. I should have thought that resolving the problems of our constituents was what Parliament was for. If this constituency matter has been resolved, I can only commend the speed with which that has been achieved.

I turn now to the railways. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present in the House when we debated transport matters in the 1970s and 1980s. Had he been present, he would have heard a number of speeches—by me, and by the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill)—making the point that investment in Britain's railways was among the lowest in Europe, and that that had caused a relative decline in the quality of our railways. That is why this Government have set about increasing investment in the railways.

I remind hon. Members of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. He told the House that, in the previous Parliament, this Government increased by half as much again the annual investment in the railways inherited from the previous Conservative Government. In this Parliament, we shall double that amount. Every year of this Parliament, this Government will be investing three times as much as the average for the last years in office of the previous Conservative Government.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe drew attention to what has been a matter for discussion in the Labour party and in the press—that, for the first two years of this Labour Government, we followed the investment and spending plans inherited from our Conservative predecessors. I am perfectly willing to listen to my colleagues and friends in Government ask whether, in retrospect, we should necessarily have shown such patience. I am not willing to listen to lectures from the Conservative party, which left us those spending plans and an inheritance for the railway industry that will take a decade to put right.

May we have a debate on the coal industry that will be wide ranging enough to deal with the problem of equal pay for the female cleaners and catering staff who have missed out on equal pay provisions? It should be broad enough to deal with the continuing compensation problems that exist for those with vibration white finger, bronchitis and emphysema and to take into account the miners' pension fund. The 50: 50 arrangement on surpluses is in an unfortunate position and needs renegotiating so that those pension rights can be extended and developed.

I am well aware of both the points that my hon. Friend raises; the deep personal concern of the individuals involved has been articulated in the House on a number of occasions.

I remind my hon. Friend that the Government were anxious to find a solution to the problem of the cleaners and other domestic staff who were caught in the position to which he refers. Indeed, we settled with all those who were nominated by the union. We very much regret that it appears that people were not included in that initial nomination, but there comes a point at which we have to draw a line under the settlement. Although I understand why the individuals concerned may feel aggrieved, we took a step that no previous Government had taken to try to resolve the issue, and we did resolve it with all those known to us at the time.

When can we expect the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the Dispatch Box and give us a full explanation of what is going on in the rail industry? The crisis is reaching desperate proportions but we have had no full statement from the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House really believe it to be desirable or satisfactory for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, in the columns of The Spectator, to produce the first analysis of the chaos that the Government have added to by failing to undo the disasters of rail privatisation in their first four years? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it satisfactory that the Liberal Democrats have to provide the Secretary of State with an opportunity to explain to the House the chaos that has been caused in the rail industry and the confusion that is increasing every day, to the disadvantage of rail passengers?

In the light of what will obviously happen as a result of the Lord Chancellor's duffing up at yesterday's meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that Labour Members are being invited, by questionnaire, to tell the Government what proportion of elected Members of the second Chamber they are prepared to accept? Why, as Leader of the whole House, is the right hon. Gentleman not inviting all members of all parties to tell him how the Government have got it wrong?

On the last matter, I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. No questionnaire from the Government Whips is going round the PLP.

Why not?

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to send a questionnaire to all Labour Members, I can predict some of the answers that he will get. However, he is welcome to do so.

We are about to have a debate on the House of Lords in which I will address the matter at greater length—indeed, perhaps at great length. I hope that the process of the debate will help take us forward to find a point of consensus on the plans for reform of the House of Lords.

On the rail industry, a speech will be made by the Minister with responsibility for the railways in the debate next week. In addition, Monday sees the publication of the new four-year plan from the Strategic Rail Authority under its new direction. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will have things to say on that occasion.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a review of English Partnerships' activity is under way. English Partnerships is a major landholder in Telford and is key to the regeneration of the town. When will there be a statement to the House on the progress of the review?

I am advised that the review is already under way. It was announced in October 2000, and there will shortly be an announcement on its progress.

The Leader of the House said that he was not prepared to listen to Conservative Members. I remind him that most of the signatories to early-day motion 513 on the parliamentary commissioner are Labour Members: [That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week.]

Is the announcement that Mr. John Stonborough has been appointed as the crisis manager for the House of Commons Commission a sign that we are likely to have that debate? What progress is being made in making a nomination to the House? Is it open to the House to say that the present commissioner should be invited to carry on with her work on her present terms?

The last sentence is a statement of the facts at the present time. The commissioner remains in post and must continue with her job; indeed, we would be distressed if she did not do so. The offer remains open to her to include herself on the shortlist, on which we guaranteed her a place. I have repeatedly urged her to accept that invitation. We want to ensure that we get the best possible candidate for the House to occupy the role of parliamentary commissioner. That is why we have tested the market. I am pleased to say that we have received a number of excellent applications, on which we will reach a judgment in the next month or two.

Will my right hon. Friend secure a statement on Iran's refusal to accept the Government's choice of ambassador to Iran, Mr. David Reddaway, on the grounds that he is Jewish, or that they believe him to be so? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is plain anti-semitism, that it should not be accepted and that Iran should not be in a position to dictate to the Government who should be our rightful ambassador?

As I understand the situation, the friction to which my hon. Friend refers does not exist. Mr. Reddaway is an excellent diplomat. I knew and worked with him when I was at the Foreign Office and have full confidence in him. It is not unusual for there to be a short delay between one ambassador leaving and another arriving. There is no friction of the sort to which she refers.

Will the Leader of the House find time soon to debate an issue that I first raised on 5 November—namely, European Union regulations on the disposal of refrigerators? Are the Government aware that this is entirely a matter of their creation, because they failed to seek a derogation from those regulations, thus making it impossible for refrigerators to be disposed of, which is leading to fly tipping and all sorts of problems? Does he recognise that it is a problem that must be rectified, and soon?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that that is a serious and pressing problem. It is having a serious impact in a number of areas. The Government are fully seized of the issue and are looking for a way to deal with it as quickly as possible.

Following the question about English Partnerships, which often used to get rid of land in new towns without consulting the local community, is my right hon. Friend aware that Defence Estates is also engaging in that practice? For instance, it has given the local Royal Air Force benevolent club in my constituency notice to quit. I hope that he will urge Defence Ministers to explain to the House that Defence Estates will act in the interests of communities, not against them, when they take such decisions.

I cannot say that I am familiar with the case that my hon. Friend draws to the House's attention, but I am glad that he has been given the opportunity to ventilate what is obviously a serious issue for his constituency. I will happily draw his comments to the attention of the Ministry of Defence.

As the Government grapple extraordinarily ineffectively with the winter of discontent that has descended on public services in many parts of the country, is the right hon. Gentleman, who was on the Government Benches in 1978, suffering from a sense of deja vu? Will he reconsider the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I made, which is that we should have regular debates—say, every month—that are attended by the Prime Minister so that we can monitor on behalf of our constituents how he is getting on with his solemn pledge to the British people at the general election that he would deliver world-class public health services?

I am refreshed to see that Conservative rhetoric has not changed in 30 years. It is helpful in this world of change to have such a reassuring statement of stasis and paralysis. Of course, there will be plenty of opportunities for the House to debate the state of the public services during this Parliament. Indeed, the Prime Minister has shown a refreshing and welcome interest in those matters. In December, he took part in discussions on health policy, and he will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman should not run down the improvement that has been secured through the increase in the number of doctors and nurses in the health service and the first increase for more than a generation in the number of beds in our hospitals. That is why this winter has passed so far without the sort of crisis that we saw in the closing years of the Conservative Government. They did not increase the number of beds in our hospitals; they dramatically cut the number.

Will the Leader of the House take soundings throughout the House to establish the views of Members on two points: first, whether there is now a consensus, as I suspect, in favour of a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, on the principle that, in a democracy, the people should decide who sits in our Parliament; and, secondly, whether now is the time for the responsibility for policy on the subject to be located in this House—the House of the Executive—and specifically in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

I think that I would be very unwise to respond to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. On the other matter, I invite him to listen attentively to the half hour that I am about to embark upon.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the concern in the House about the relationship between India and Pakistan. The Prime Minister recently visited those countries, yet we have not had a statement on what happened. Specifically, is it possible to have a statement on whether he made any representation to the President of Pakistan about the person in Pakistan who is agitating for attacks on this country, and whether there is any chance of extradition to enable that person to be brought here to be tried for such activities? Concerns were expressed about London being a centre of international terrorism; now it seems that we can be attacked from abroad, by encouragement. Is it possible that there might be that ambiguity in the Government's viewpoint between home-bred terrorists and international terrorism?

I see no such ambiguity in that case. I believe that the hon. Gentleman refers to Mr. Butt, whose inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric we would all deplore. It must be borne in mind that on several occasions in the past he has made wild statements that have turned out to have no substantial basis in fact.

Without referring specifically to the case of Mr. Butt, our security and law enforcement services monitor the situation very carefully and look very hard to see whether there is any evidence of a threat to this country from within or without it. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, those authorities now have more means with which to conduct that search for any threat to the country and hold to account those who are a threat to this country.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that should a full-scale war break out in Kashmir, it would have a disastrous effect on community relations in many towns and cities in Britain that have a substantial number of citizens of Indian and Pakistani origin? It has been said that the conflict could produce civil unrest on Britain's streets that would make the current disturbances in north Belfast seem like a teddy bears' picnic. Will he find time for the House to be regularly updated on the worrying events in Kashmir, and will he ask our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to encourage peaceful dialogue in the region?

I would not wish to be alarmist about the consequences of conflict in the sub-continent. We have witnessed such conflict in the past without any sensational developments on our own streets, although we must be careful about the rhetoric that we use. However, having expressed that reservation, I would have no dissent with my hon. Friend's concern about the consequences for the region and the world of any conflict. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put so much effort into speaking to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan and urging them to return to dialogue. I find it very hard to understand why some have criticised him for going to that very substantial area of partnership for Britain, of community ties with the British people, and of concern about tension for world peace. I believe that he was absolutely right to go and absolutely right to try to ensure that peace continues.

Will the Leader of the House take an urgent look at the format of Transport questions, as under the present arrangements we can question only the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions and his junior Ministers, none of whom runs the Government's transport policy? Will he find an early parliamentary opportunity for us to question the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who is responsible for negotiating with the striking unions, Lord Birt, who is in charge of long-term Government thinking on transport policy, and the Minister for Europe, who seems to be in charge of telling the truth on transport policy?

I have to tell the House that I know of no ministerial team from any Department that has appeared more often in the Chamber or any Cabinet colleague who has come more often to the Dispatch Box since the general election than the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and his team. It was entirely wrong for some in the press to criticise him for taking a holiday over the new year, for heaven's sake, and I should like to know whether those in the press who made that criticism have taken fewer holidays than him during the past 12 months.

Will my right hon. Friend make a clear commitment to the Government's commitment to mutual and co-operative organisations? Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Government—principally, those at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry—to ensure that they carefully consider the two Bills that will be debated on 18 and 25 January? Those Bills would make a significant difference to mutual organisations, so anything that could be done would be of major importance all round.

The Government are highly supportive of the development of co-operative forms of ownership and partnership in industry and business, and we shall continue that record of support and ensure that there are no legal barriers in the way of such of organisations flourishing and competing successfully. I will pass on to the relevant Department my hon. Friend's comments on the forthcoming private Members' Bills.

The Leader of the House will know that the Government have recently published proposals—albeit, in consultative documents—seeking to make radical changes to our town and country planning system, including dealing with planning applications of national significance. As those issues are vital to all our constituents, does he agree that a debate on that matter would be very helpful to the Government and, indeed, the House at this time?

I am always open to suggestions for debates that would be helpful to the Government and will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. He raises a very serious and strategic issue, and he is right to say that we are consulting on it. It is important that that consultation process should enable all those in the country to express their views. I understand that the proposals cannot proceed without legislation, so they are bound to be debated in the House at some stage.

May I tell my right hon. Friend how fearful many families in my constituency with friends and relatives in Kashmir are about the growing tension between India and Pakistan? I endorse the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) to hold a debate on this subject in the near future. May I tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents appreciate the Foreign Secretary's efforts in seeking to mediate between India and Pakistan? Does he agree that this is perhaps now the time for the United Kingdom to play a more proactive role as a mediator in the conflict between those two nations?

My hon. Friend is correct. Some 3 million people in Britain have community and family ties with the sub-continent, all of whom will watch, with close interest and apprehension, what may happen to their relatives and back any effort to try to preserve peace. Those efforts are strenuously pursued in the Foreign Office and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I appreciate my hon. Friend's call for more discussion of this issue in the Chamber, and I will retain a watching brief on it and consider what he says.

In the meantime, I should mention that I suggested in my modernisation proposals that we should reduce the period of notice for oral questions to increase topicality. Tuesday's Question Time was a good example of the need to do that, as the Order Paper contained not a single question to the Foreign Secretary on India and Pakistan. That would not have happened if we had a realistic period of notice.

Is the Leader of the House aware that he has singularly failed to explain why the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has not voluntarily come to the Chamber since the House returned on Tuesday, when my constituents and others are suffering from neanderthal industrial action on the railways at the hands of the RMT? Is the real answer that too many Labour Members, starting with the Deputy Prime Minister, are far too close to the RMT?

I indignantly deny that suggestion. For the record and in case anyone subsequently complains, I explain that I have had a long relationship with the RMT, which has been regularly and annually declared. I am happy to make that clear.

The position that the Government have taken on the current dispute has been to invite both sides to go forward to arbitration. There is provision for arbitration in their agreement, and we hope that both sides will agree to arbitration.

Over decades, the House has discussed the Government's role in disputes and, by and large, the consensus has emerged—a consensus that was certainly followed by the previous Conservative Government—that industrial disputes are a matter for the business concerned. They are not for politicians to resolve on a political basis.

May I ask for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to make a statement on the performance of the train operating companies? Too much of the debate about the railways has focused on individuals rather than on what people in the street want done to improve the railways. My constituents suffer the daily misery of travelling to central London on Connex South Eastern, which is almost certainly the worst-performing train operating company on the rail network. We need a proper debate—not one that is petty and backbiting about who is or is not running the railways—that will bring about the improvements that we need. The performance of the train operating companies and the persistent poor performance of the management of those companies is worthy of debate in the House.

I echo the central thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. This issue is not a matter of personalities and it should not be personalised. Fundamental strategic issues are involved and those who use the railways are aware of some of them. They would like those issues, and not personalities, to be at the centre of the debate.

I invite my hon. Friend to look forward to the announcement on Monday of the Strategic Rail Authority's four-year plan. I hope that it will provide a way in which we can create a consistent theme to take forward the future of the railways and to address some of the problems that they face.

Can the Leader of the House find time for a brief debate on the helicopter industry? He may be aware that just one hour ago Westland helicopters, which is now part of AgustaWestland, announced 600 job losses at its base in Yeovil. That will have a serious effect on my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). Is it not time that we had an opportunity to hear from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about the strategic importance to both military and civil avionics of our helicopter industry, and from Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions about the help that they can afford my constituents at this very difficult time?

I fully sympathise with the position of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I was notified of the recent announcement of the redundancies in Yeovil and elsewhere in the south-west. The Government will obviously examine any way in which, through the Department of Trade and Industry and the Employment Service, we can assist communities to cope with the impact of the redundancies. However, at the end of the day, the decision is one for the company. It was not taken by the Government, and although we of course bear in mind the strategic importance of preserving our own weapons and armaments industries, those industries must ultimately decide what is required of their work force and the size of the work force they need.

When can we debate the adverse effects of prescribed drugs? It has been reported that the young pilot who crashed into the skyscraper in Miami was being prescribed Roaccutane, which is notorious for producing side effects including depressive illnesses and suicidal tendencies. A few years ago, a young constituent of mine died after being prescribed this drug and his parents have been campaigning ever since for clearer labelling of the drug and for warnings that it had such awful side effects. I have seen no improvements since then on the warnings about Roaccutane. When can we debate the issue?

I have to confess that I am not technically qualified to enter into a discussion on the particular drug to which my hon. Friend refers. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of Health. There are requirements on the information about and on the labelling of all drugs and they usually draw attention to the kind of side effects that he has mentioned. However, if there is a problem, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will wish to address it.

Given that in two weeks' time South Hams district council will produce a local plan that almost certainly will provide, thanks to Government pressure, for a new town in the middle of my constituency for up to 4,500 houses that no one locally wants, may I add my weight to a call for a debate in Government time on town and country planning? Two points need to be made. First, while the Government consult on new rules, district councils up and down the country are producing local plans on the basis of existing rules and are confused whether the new rules will apply to that process. Secondly, we need to be able to argue the case for existing national housebuilding targets to be scrapped so that decisions on the number of houses to be built locally can be taken by local people.

I would not advise the hon. Gentleman's council or any other to put decisions on hold pending a change in legislation. As Leader of the House I can say that there is no guarantee when legislation will be completed and come into force. It is important that decisions are not left in suspense until then. I understand the controversy that such a proposal must cause in any constituency, but there are many ways for the hon. Gentleman to ventilate his concerns, and I would encourage him to do so.

Is there time for a debate on the energy industry? We need that debate for two reasons. First, Ofgem, the energy watchdog, plans to complete the deregulation of energy pricing, which has implications for rising energy prices for low-income families. Secondly, confidence tricksters are going around switching energy supplies to various homes without the permission of the people who live in them. Clearly that is to a large extent a result of deregulation and we need to crack down on those cowboys. Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, on those problems in the energy industry?

My hon. Friend makes his concerns most forcefully and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister. I understand that the Office for Gas and Electricity Marketing is consulting on some of those matters and he may wish to express his concerns directly to it.

In 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

"I will have failed in five years' time if there are not fewer journeys by car."

He went on to say:

"It is a tall order—but I want you to hold me to it."

I mention in the light of today's report that since 1997 there are 3 million more cars on the roads of the United Kingdom. May I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on transport so that we might first explore the total failure of the Government to move people from cars on to public transport and secondly consider the roads policy? It seems to me that most of those 3 million cars are parked permanently on the M6, unable to move because of the Government's failure to reach conclusions on the development of those vital routeways.

There have been more debates on transport than any other issue in this Parliament and I am sure that it will continue to be a priority. However, the right hon. Gentleman might, for completeness, have shared with the House the fact that more people are travelling by bus than before and more people are travelling by train than ever before. I would have thought that the Conservative party would welcome the new subsidies that we introduced to ensure that there are more rural buses.

Is the Leader of the House aware that quite a few of us on the Opposition Benches think that, all things considered, he was a capable and able Foreign Secretary, and in particular that his ethical foreign policy would have had more impact on Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the Government's policy on Zimbabwe is not delivering? It is about as much use as an ashtray on a motor cycle, and that country is facing its gravest crisis since independence. Is it not time that we had a full-day's debate on the crisis in Zimbabwe?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening comment, but it would have been nice if it had been made when I was Foreign Secretary, rather than afterwards.

Zimbabwe is in a grave crisis. Indeed, no one in the Government has sought to diminish that in any way. I read the comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Question Time on Tuesday. He clearly laid the degree of persistent serious violation of human rights in Zimbabwe on the line and made a new commitment that if the situation does not improve the Government will speak up for the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

We have gone through the gamut of measures available to us as sanctions. We have reduced aid and targeted it only for humanitarian purposes. We have used the political measures available to us. We have withdrawn the British military advisory and training team from Zimbabwe. We are working with both the Commonwealth and the European Union, with some success, to increase that pressure and we will continue to do everything that we can.

Can the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a Government statement on the ombudsman's report, published at the end of last year, on access to official information? The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the ombudsman found that this was the only occasion when a Government had failed properly to respond to a report of his on access to information. As a result, he laid it in the Library of the House, but there is still no Government response. Can the right hon. Gentleman ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for relations with the ombudsman, to come to the House and make a response so that we can question him about what the Government are trying to hide?

The Government are not trying to hide anything; indeed, as the ombudsman's report accepts, the Government were acting entirely within the principles of the code and the decision concerned was not wrong, even though he himself may have chosen to disagree with it. The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to pursue the matter, and I am sure that he will do so.

I became aware yesterday of some of the issues surrounding the withdrawal of a question to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We heard more about that today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The matter raises serious issues about Back Benchers' ability to hold the Government to account, Government control freakery, which is becoming all too apparent, and the status of Parliament itself. We ought to have a debate so that we can investigate all those issues.

Whatever can be said about the matter concerned, I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that it hardly seems to be an example of Parliament failing to hold Ministers to account; on the contrary, it demonstrates the Government responding quickly, expeditiously and appropriately to a Member's concern.

In my most recent statement about Afghanistan, on 19 December, I set out the encouraging progress that had been made towards the deployment of an international security assistance force to Kabul and its surrounding areas. I am grateful for this early opportunity to bring the House up to date with the considerable progress that we have made since then.

First, however, it is important to repeat why the United Kingdom is participating in and, indeed, leading the international security assistance force. That is entirely consistent with the objectives for the campaign against international terrorism that we set out last October. Those objectives have not changed. They are being achieved, and coalition military operations will continue until they have been achieved in full. The United Kingdom continues to support the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.

We have always made it clear, however, that our commitment to Afghanistan was not simply for the short term. One of the longer-term campaign aims that we set out in October was to secure the reintegration of Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community and an end to its self-imposed isolation. That is vital if we are to ensure that the link between Afghanistan and international terrorism is broken.

An essential part of achieving that longer term aim is supporting the establishment of a new representative Government in Afghanistan—a process that was agreed at Bonn on 5 December. That means providing support to the Afghan Interim Administration. That support was clearly demonstrated by the Prime Minister's visit to Bagram on Monday.

The Bonn agreement called for the deployment of an international security assistance force to Kabul. One month on, troops are already on patrol in the streets of the Afghan capital. As the lead nation for the security force for the first three months, the United Kingdom has been responsible for putting the ISAF together. To have put together a major international force and agreed the terms of its deployment with an Interim Administration who have only just taken office—all in less than a month—is a remarkable achievement. I pay tribute to all the other nations who have offered troops—both those who will be contributing from the outset and those who will not—and to the Afghan Administration and to the United States. Without their help, we would never have achieved that in such a short time.

The way forward for the deployment of the force was cleared by the signing of the military technical agreement on 4 January by the commander of the ISAF, Major-General McColl, and the Afghan Interim Administration. That agreement, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House, sets out the relationship between the ISAF and the Interim Administration. It defines the status of the security force and gives it the powers that it requires to operate freely and without hindrance. It covers the legal status of the ISAF, its deployment and authority, and the support that the Interim Administration will provide. It specifies the location of the barracks in Kabul to which Afghan forces will be confined. Most important, it makes clear what the ISAF will do and where it will operate.

The ISAF is there to assist the Afghan Interim Administration, and the military technical agreement sets out what that might mean in practice. In addition to taking part in joint patrols with the Afghan police, the ISAF may assist the Interim Administration in developing future security structures; assist the Interim Administration in reconstruction; and identify and arrange training and assistance tasks for future Afghan security forces. The ISAF will operate in Kabul, and Kabul alone. The military technical agreement includes a map that clearly delimits the security force's area of responsibility.

In putting the security force together, we have made a careful assessment of the military capabilities that are needed to complete these tasks. Major General McColl and representatives from other troop-contributing nations have already carried out essential reconnaissance to that end. The ISAF headquarters is now operational and the first elements of the ISAF main body have already deployed. British forces have been on patrol in Kabul for nearly two weeks now. French troops began to patrol yesterday and those patrols have been extremely well received by the people of Kabul.

In total, the security force will be about 5,000 strong. Putting it together has not been easy, but not because we lacked offers of help. The international community responded swiftly and generously to our request for troops and at the planning conference on 19 December, 21 countries offered forces. Many nations offered infantry, but we had to construct a balanced and capable force able to get to Afghanistan quickly, support itself and do its job. The ISAF needs logistics support, explosive ordnance disposal troops, signallers, engineers, medical units, helicopters and, given that it will deploy and be supplied by air, it needs air transport.

As is always the case when putting a force together, we had to negotiate with the countries offering troops. Some were able to adjust their offers in the light of what we needed; others were not. For various reasons, some countries, such as Argentina, Jordan and Malaysia, have had to withdraw their offers to participate. There may, of course, be an opportunity for them to contribute troops at a later stage. There has been some comment about Canada's generous offer of an infantry battlegroup. It was not rejected; we were simply unable to accept it in its entirety from the outset. We had hoped to use its engineers right from the beginning, then replace our own infantry battlegroup with the Canadian battlegroup after several weeks. In the end, the Canadians decided to deploy their troops elsewhere—to Kandahar—to support continuing offensive operations in that region. While we would have welcomed them as part of the security force, we welcome their deployment to Kandahar where they will play an important role in the fight against international terrorism.

In total, we expect 17 countries to deploy troops alongside United Kingdom forces as part of the ISAF—Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. The participation of those nations will be formalised this afternoon with the signing here in London of memorandums of understanding. That represents the final step in agreeing the structure of the ISAF for its period under our leadership.

The nature of the forces provided by those nations varies considerably in size and type. The Austrians, Danes and Dutch are deploying forces as part of a German-led multinational infantry battlegroup; others are providing vital specialist troops. New Zealand, for example, is to provide headquarters staff and support troops; Norway has promised explosive ordnance disposal troops and other support troops; Romania has offered military police and air transport assets; and Turkey will help staff the headquarters and will deploy other troops as well.

The security force is authorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution and will be led by the United Kingdom. The United States central command has authority over the ISAF to ensure that there is no risk of its activities interfering with the successful completion of Operation Enduring Freedom. The membership of the security force will probably change over the next six months. The ISAF is a coalition of the willing, drawn from forces that are needed, available and deployable in the time required.

The United Kingdom has agreed to lead the ISAF for its first three months. We took that on because our armed forces have the right capabilities; we have experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments; and we can provide effective command structures and enablers to get a force in and up and running in the time scale required. Being the lead nation means that we must inevitably provide the core of the security force, which is vividly demonstrated by the breadth of the forces that we have assigned to it. The force headquarters is drawn from the headquarters of 3(UK) Division. The headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade will exercise tactical command. Our infantry battle group is centred around the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and includes a company of Gurkhas. Elements of 33 and 36 Regiments, Royal Engineers, will deploy—so will 30 Signal Regiment, which will provide strategic communications. Support troops will be drawn from a number of units, including 13 Air Assault Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps, and 16 Medical Regiment of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The Royal Air Force is deploying a range of airfield enablers from stations across the country. Those are simply the major force elements; we will also deploy many other smaller support units. We are now withdrawing the elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines who have helped to secure Bagram airstrip.

The United Kingdom's contribution to the ISAF will total up to 1,800 personnel. In addition and in the short term, we are deploying almost 300 Army and Royal Air Force personnel to help repair and operate Kabul international airport. That will help us in resupplying the ISAF and will be of lasting benefit to the Afghan people. We are able to make this contribution without any impact on our other operational commitments. Our commitment as lead nation is limited in duration. The ISAF mandate is for six months; we shall hand over our lead nation status to one of our partners after three months. I am delighted that Turkey has already expressed an interest in the responsibility. That does not mean that our commitment to participating in the security force will end completely at the three-month point. Certainly, we would expect to see a significant reduction in the number of British troops deployed, but we will not ignore the need to give continuing support to whoever takes over as lead nation.

We and our partners have already begun to deploy the forces assigned to the ISAF. Others will follow over the next few weeks. The security force should reach its full strength by mid-February. This deployment is not easy: it can only be done by air; airport facilities in Afghanistan are limited and very basic; and weather conditions can be treacherous. Supplying the security force—also by air—will be difficult. So far, the deployment has gone well, thanks to the thorough preparatory work we have been doing over the past few weeks.

We have put together and begun deploying the international security assistance force while continuing our contribution to the coalition military operations elsewhere in Afghanistan. As I have indicated, the United Kingdom is continuing to support the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. The Royal Air Force is still flying reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling sorties. The Royal Navy is now playing an important role in the coalition maritime force in the region and is patrolling in the Arabian sea to prevent those with links to al-Qaeda from escaping from the region. I pay tribute to the work that it is doing.

Neither we nor the wider international community have neglected the provision of humanitarian aid. The World Food Programme and other agencies have worked hard to ensure that relief supplies are in place for the winter months. The World Food Programme dispatched 116,000 metric tonnes of wheat in December, against a target of 100,000 tonnes. That is the highest monthly distribution into Afghanistan to date, reflecting the expansion in aid operations and improved access to most parts of the country.

The United Kingdom's commitment to the Afghan people as they set about the enormous task of rebuilding their country remains as strong as our commitment to them in removing the Taliban from power. Our contribution to the ISAF is a clear demonstration of that commitment. Our contribution could not have been made without the skills and abilities of our armed forces. I am confident that they will carry out this new task, on which so much depends, to the high standards that we have come to expect.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, a copy of which I received in good time, for which I am grateful, and for his continued efforts to keep Parliament fully informed about developments in Afghanistan. May I reassure him and the House that, whatever reservations Opposition Members may express about the deployment of the ISAF, we share the hopes of the Government and the whole House that it will be successful? Moreover, the Government continue to enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for their backing of the United States in the war against terrorism and their commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan alongside the continuing humanitarian aid programme.

I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would clarify four main issues. First, I understand that there has been an inevitable measure of uncertainty about the timing and mechanics of the deployment. Will he express his sympathy and understanding to the families of some elements of 2 Para that have been put on 48-hour standby and then stood down many times since 11 September and more than once over the Christmas period?

Incidentally, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the welfare of our troops? What accommodation will United Kingdom soldiers have in Afghanistan? Will they have anything more than sleeping bags on concrete floors in derelict buildings for the coldest winter months? What access will they have to telephones and e-mails for contacting families back home?

Secondly, uncertainty inevitably compounds the effects of overstretch. I note the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to deal with that point. However, does he recall that 2 Para was in Northern Ireland last Christmas and was sent to Macedonia at short notice during the school holidays in August? After this operation, it is due to serve in Northern Ireland again next Christmas. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman fully understands that such intensive disruption to family life is one of the factors that drives good soldiers to leave the British army. Can he set a date for the withdrawal of our main elements of the ISAF as well as for handing over responsibility to the follow-on force in three months?

Thirdly, on overall command, is it true that the Government waited for the approval of all EU states, including non-NATO members, which are not involved in the ISAF or have only a token role, such as Austria, Finland and Sweden or no role, such as Ireland, as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on 14 December? Is it also true that our European partners objected to the principle of overall US command? Again, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on 16 December:

"The British want the force to act under the auspices of US central command … Germany rejects this idea."

Why have the Government acquiesced to the demand so that different UK forces in Afghanistan operate under split command in the same military theatre? Does that explain why the Foreign Secretary tabled proposals in writing on the matter in Washington that were rejected out of hand by the Americans and had to be substantially amended? What exactly is the agreement between the ISAF and US central command?

Why has the Secretary of State allowed the shadow of the Euro army to cloud the Government's judgment? He has been determined to involve as many EU members as possible at the expense of NATO allies. That is not only my criticism; the Canadian Defence Minister can discern no other reason for the refusal of Canada's offer of help. On Monday he told a press conference in Ottawa:

"This is a European Union kind of mission. I think quite clearly European politics became a part of the decision making process."

Is the Secretary of State worried that he has created unnecessary friction with the United States and offended Canada, one of our most loyal and long-term NATO allies? As has been announced, the Canadian infantry is good enough for the Americans to deploy for war fighting around Kandahar.

Fourthly, now that our troops are in Kabul, will the Secretary of State clarify any misunderstanding about the Bonn agreement? Annexe 1 clearly states that the Afghan Government must

"withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centres or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed",

yet Interior Minister Qanooni said that that will not happen.

Does not the military technical agreement that was agreed last Friday permit the Kabul Government to maintain Northern Alliance forces in Kabul to be deployed when they wish? How will that affect the ability of ISAF forces to intervene in cases where lives are threatened? It is all very well saying that British forces are welcome in Kabul, although I am pleased by that news, but why was a patrol of Royal Marines able to do nothing but stand aside and watch a woman accused of adultery being stoned?

We are told that ISAF patrols must defer to the Afghan police. How are they meant to distinguish between Afghan police and Northern Alliance troops, given that they are the same people? Why are we patrolling in "Kabul alone" to quote the Secretary of State, when the Bonn agreement clearly states:

"This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas",

so why Kabul alone?

The Secretary of State must answer these questions about the political leadership of ISAF. As for the British armed forces, they are once again demonstrating their supreme professionalism, and we are confident that everyone, from the high command and General John McColl to the troops on the ground, is ready to meet any challenge that they are given. I assure them that we wish them every success.

I welcome a number of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman, but he rather spoils the impact of his sensible questions by his continuing obsession with things European. He risks becoming a kind of Dr. Strangelove figure, unable to control his European obsessions, with his characteristic lack of understanding of the way in which these matters operate. Instead of concentrating on the matters at hand, about which he has some sensible questions to ask, he shows his obsession with Europe and European issues, which ruins what would otherwise be a perfectly sensible set of questions on behalf of the Opposition.

I will deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in relation to the overall command of the force by referring to the statement that I have just made. Having given him the opportunity of reading it, I am surprised that he did not study the details of the command more carefully. This is a UN-mandated force, a coalition of the willing, that includes a significant number of countries—I read the list out fairly slowly for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. Countries such as Norway, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and New Zealand have not yet exhibited characteristics consistent with being members of the European Union. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's grasp of geography might be a little less than desirable. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front-Bench Members sitting there saying, "This is cheap". We read the shadow Defence Minister's observations on the front page of The Times the other day. We know what his obsession is; he has repeated it here today. If he wants his observations on defence matters to be treated sensibly, he really ought to make sensible ones. Frankly, talking about a European army is simply a characteristic of the obsession that the Conservative party and its Front-Bench spokesmen have, sadly, been gripped by.

The force is a coalition of the willing. It works as a result of the 18 countries represented working together to provide the appropriate forces necessary to do this particular job. The hon. Gentleman asks why UK forces in Afghanistan will be under two different sets of command. The answer would be a statement of the obvious, if he had been following what has been happening there over recent months, British forces are engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom under the direct tactical command of the United States. There are now also forces involved in the security force engaged in helping to reconstruct Afghanistan. There is nothing remarkable about that, and nothing that is difficult to understand—except to someone who is determined not to understand it because he wants to make a cheap point about Europe and the way in which the forces are deployed.

I set out our position clearly on the relationship with the United States Central Command—Centcom—in the statement. There is a clear relationship agreed between the United Kingdom and the United States to ensure deconfliction between the two forces. That is a matter that any sensible Ministry of Defence would resolve, and it has been resolved entirely satisfactorily between the United States, the United Kingdom and other contributors to the ISAF.

I also set out the position in relation to Canada in the statement. Canada offered a complex battle group which, unfortunately, duplicated the kinds of forces that we had been offered by a number of other countries. In trying to provide a satisfactory solution for Canada, as well as for those other countries, we offered Canada the opportunity for its force to come in to replace a British battle group. This was a matter for Canada, and it judged that it was better for its force to become involved in the operations in southern Afghanistan. We entirely welcome that. The matter was agreed with Canada and it is not worth the comment that the hon. Gentleman chose to make about it.

On the more sensible points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I share his concern about the impact on families, particularly over a holiday period, of the change in notice requirements and the difficulties that that causes, but it is an inevitable consequence of the uncertainties that we obviously face in a fast-moving situation such as that in Afghanistan.

Work is being done on an accommodation and welfare package. One of this country's key abilities is getting forces into a theatre quickly, and we shall address the comprehensive welfare package that goes with it, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation is the best available in the circumstances, although I do not pretend that it is not pretty robust. The Prime Minister told me this morning that he is very impressed by the efforts made by British forces, which he saw for himself in Bagram the other day. We shall continue to work on the matter.

I do not accept that there is any impact on overstretch. On the date for withdrawing the force, I referred in my statement to the time scale. We anticipate being the lead nation for three months, but we do not anticipate leaving the theatre entirely thereafter, simply because it is important that we continue to contribute to the six-month effort that the UN has mandated. We are pleased that Turkey has offered to replace the United Kingdom as lead nation and anticipate that, by the end of the three months, that will have led to a significant reduction in the number of British troops deployed.

I have previously described to the House the importance of having robust rules of engagement, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman, as I did then, that this is not a peacekeeping operation. The force is for security assistance and we are there to work alongside an Interim Administration who are engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. That is a difficult and complex task, and it is a sign of the support that the international community can give that 18 countries are represented in the ISAF and prepared to put their troops on the streets of Kabul to assist.

The hon. Gentleman's questions about a wider involvement do not address the matter of the kind of force that has been and will continue to be deployed in Afghanistan. The force is there to support the Interim Administration as they struggle with the difficulties of restoring Afghanistan to the international community.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the role that they have played in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. I know that the contribution made by British forces is much appreciated. I particularly want to ask him about reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been unable to gain access to prisoners. Will he set out the status of prisoners being held in Afghanistan? Are they held under the Geneva convention or not? On what basis are prisoners being sent to the United States or Cuba or being held in Afghanistan?

I would expect all prisoners held in Afghanistan to be subject to the Geneva convention and we would expect that, ultimately, the ICRC will have access to them.

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of the statement and I welcome its content. We on these Benches continue to support the deployment of UK troops under the Bonn agreement of 5 December and UN resolution 1386 of 20 December. We congratulate the Ministry, and in particular General McColl and his team, on getting themselves into such a state of preparedness at this early stage. However, I seek clarification of certain points in the statement.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the rules of engagement are robust enough to ensure the safety of the British troops deployed in this exercise? Will he further clarify the time scale he has mentioned? In particular, has the three-month period begun; if so, at what point did it begin? He was careful to say that British troops would not be withdrawn completely at the end of the three months; what scale of operation does he expect Britain to continue to support after that?

Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the United Nations mandate is flexible enough to allow the troops to ensure the safety of Afghan civilians? Will he also clarify the role of the UN Secretary-General? Resolution 1386 specifically asks the force to report to the Secretary-General. It is important to understand the relationship between that and the line of command to the United States.

Many of our armed forces have been in the region under Operation Veritas. When does the Secretary of State expect them to be either redeployed or returned home— or are they being retained in the area for possible deployment in other theatres, should the situation develop further?

As I said on the last occasion, it is important for the rules of engagement to be robust and to provide for the safety and security of our armed forces. I assure the House that that is the case.

I expect the three-month period to run from the point at which the force becomes fully operational. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date today, but I am sure that the House will be informed. It will depend on the extent of the logistical problems involved in conveying a large force and its supplies to a difficult environment within an appropriate time scale. There are uncertainties in the region at present, and it is important for us to take them into account. If all goes according to our current plans, however, I shall expect the period to start very shortly.

As I said in my statement, this is a UN-mandated force, and regular reports to the Secretary-General are of course involved. As I have also said, however, the force's role is to assist the Interim Administration. It is not there to perform a peacekeeping role, or to police the streets of Kabul day in, day out. It is therefore the Interim Administration's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Afghan citizens, although that does not mean that the rules of engagement are not robust enough to allow our forces to intervene in appropriate circumstances.

Obviously we will have regard to ensuring that forces are replaced in theatre when that is necessary, or allowed to return to the United Kingdom or another appropriate base when the time comes.

I welcome the statement. Other members of the defence forces will want to play their part; what implications has the deployment for our reserve forces?

The impact on our reserve forces has already been clear. There has been a call-out order since last October, which allows us to call out individual volunteer reservists for operations resulting from the terrorist attacks in the United States. The process has worked very well to date, but we must now consider how to sustain our operations in the future. One possibility is limited further mobilisation, particularly in specialist areas, and I am considering that. It conforms to our policy of integrated and usable reserve forces as set out in the strategic defence review, and although we have not yet made a decision, we may do so in the near future.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we should not underestimate the difficulty of recent operations, and that all those involved in the planning and implementation of the operations in Afghanistan deserve our heartfelt appreciation? I join those who have paid tribute to the courage, determination and skill of our armed forces.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if we continue to expose our troops to hazard in an area with a primitive infrastructure, they will have first-class medical support?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. He is right to say that it is a difficult theatre, and it does not pay to underestimate the problems that our forces have already faced and will continue to face in Afghanistan. I am also grateful for his tribute to the armed forces. I have said that a British medical force will be deployed, alongside medical units from other countries, and access to up-to-date medical facilities is a vital aspect of support for any deployed force. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be the case.

Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), can my right hon. Friend clarify whether all alleged terrorists in Afghanistan, including those held by US forces, will be dealt with in due course under the auspices of the UN, through the International Criminal Court?

I mentioned earlier the UK's expectation that all prisoners will be covered by the Geneva convention. I cannot go further, because it is not my responsibility to determine how the Interim Administration or the US should deal with prisoners. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not the responsibility of the United Nations to deal with those matters either. In international law, the Geneva convention applies and that is the best statement that I can give of British policy.

Given that we train our troops for war fighting and given—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said—that our troops have played a distinguished role in the offensive alongside our American counterparts in what has been a most successful operation, can the Secretary of State tell us why Canadian troops are being deployed in Kandahar to assist the Americans in the offensive activities that are still necessary to rid Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, and why our troops are restricted to their present role? The Secretary of State says that that role is not peacekeeping, but I am not sure what else it is. It certainly does not mean involvement in the offensive activity.

Again, I would be delighted to answer questions on behalf of the Canadian Defence Ministry, but I am not in a position to do so. As for war fighting, some 5,000 British troops are engaged in continuing operations in and around Afghanistan. They are doing their job magnificently, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect. Equally, the international community has assumed a separate responsibility, which the UK has taken on as lead nation, to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I am sure that with a moment's reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is equally important, having dealt with the threat that the Taliban regime posed to international security, that we should ensure that the Interim Administration have the opportunity to rebuild Afghanistan, if for no other reason than to avoid a further threat from that part of the world. After all, we got into the difficulties with Afghanistan because of the failure of the international community after the Russian withdrawal to recognise that Afghanistan could pose a threat beyond its borders. We must avoid at all costs repeating that mistake.

To what extent is it anticipated that our troops will play a role in securing the distribution of aid? The Secretary of State will have seen reports that people in the interior of Afghanistan are surviving on grass, and it is important that aid reaches them as quickly as possible. Aid seems to be reaching the country, but it then appears to be stockpiled instead of being distributed in some of the more difficult areas.

That will not be a responsibility of our present force. As I emphasised earlier, its responsibilities are limited to Kabul. I have read those accounts and it is obvious that there are difficulties in certain more remote parts of Afghanistan. I know that serious attention is being given to distribution, which is the problem at present. I said in my statement that more food is now getting into Afghanistan than at any time before. The problem is making sure that once it arrives, it reaches those parts of that country that are at the moment somewhat inaccessible. However, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that every effort is being made to deal with the problems right across the country.

It was disingenuous and unworthy of the Secretary of State to attack my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the European dimension, given that all my hon. Friend was doing was quoting the Canadian Secretary of State for Defence.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Prime Minister visited Bagram for two or three hours on Monday. He said in his statement that British forces are on the streets of Kabul and have been for the past two weeks. Could the Secretary of State amplify his remarks on the security position within Kabul, and say whether the Prime Minister did not visit Kabul because of security reasons? Will he answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex that has direct relation to the situation in Kabul? Annexe 1 of the Bonn agreement says that military forces in Kabul would be withdrawn where mandated forces were deployed. Has that condition now been met?

As the build-up of the force continues, I indicated in my statement that we are well short of an operating capability there. Obviously we are in the process of implementing the Bonn agreement in what is a very dangerous environment. Nobody can underestimate the difficulties that our forces face in doing their job in Bagram and Kabul. I am not going to suggest to the House that theirs is not a demanding role. That is why we have every regard to the security and safety of any visitor to that part of the world.

I welcome the deployment of the force—I congratulate the Government on the part that they have played—and I wish the force every success, whatever the composition of the force, particularly if a lot of European countries are involved. On the question of humanitarian aid raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), there are large areas of Afghanistan where the situation is desperate and lack of security is preventing the delivery of aid. There must be some plans for the future to extend the multinational security force to other areas, to enable those people to be fed.

I have emphasised the nature of the Bonn agreement and the agreement entered into by the international community with the Interim Administration. It is not to extend the activities of the security force beyond Kabul. That is not to say that efforts are not being made inside Afghanistan by relevant international organisations and the Interim Administration to ensure the effective distribution of aid. That work will continue and it is supported by the international community by ensuring that large amounts of aid are provided.

The issue, as the hon. Lady has quite fairly indicated, is security and distribution. She knows a good deal about the situation in Afghanistan; the problems faced particularly in the most inaccessible parts of the country were caused by the failure of three successive harvests and by three years of drought. They are not attributable to the security situation directly, or to the military conflict. That is not in any way to underestimate their seriousness, nor to underestimate the determination of the international community to help resolve them.

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and I thank him for providing me with a copy before he spoke. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I put on record our support for the security force and reiterate our support for the military operations against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I especially support those from my constituency and RAF Kinloss who are serving in our armed forces.

I wish to reinforce some of the points made today in terms of the interaction between the military and humanitarian operations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees this morning reported problems to do with distribution and security in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. The International Rescue Committee has highlighted an extreme situation in the mountainous northern region of Abdullah Ghan. The Secretary of State has explained that there is no possibility that ISAF' s role and area of responsibility will be widened. If that remains the case, will he say how military units on the ground elsewhere in Afghanistan could help to secure the aid deliveries so urgently needed in parts of that country?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's early comments, but in the end he asked a question that I have sought to answer on two previous occasions already. The security force has a particular responsibility that has been agreed with the Interim Administration. Other forces in Afghanistan that belong to the international coalition are still actively engaged in rounding up the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda elements. I am confident that those forces will continue their particular military task until they are successful.

As far as the distribution of aid is concerned, however, the extensive support given by the international community means that there is no reason why the Interim Administration should not be able to ensure the effective distribution of aid, even in those especially difficult parts of Afghanistan that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There remain some real dangers in and around the Kandahar area, and elements of the Taliban and of al-Qaeda are still active and dangerous in that part of the world. I emphasise that it is vital that those elements be rounded up and dealt with before further efforts to distribute aid are made.

Given that the thoughts of the United States Administration are clearly turning to the next stage of the war against terrorism, what assessment has been made of the numbers and types of troops that this country might contribute to any future operation?

Again, I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of reality. Obviously, efforts are in hand to address the threat of international terrorist organisations from other countries, but as I said in my statement, the focus of the United States and the United Kingdom remains on ensuring that the work that we began in Afghanistan is continued to a successful conclusion.

May I begin by applauding the deployment of ISAF, and especially the work of Major-General John McColl? However, the Secretary of State has spoken about the importance of rounding up the elements of al-Qaeda that are still effective in the Kandahar area. Without dwelling on Canada's decision to deploy a light infantry battle group there, will he say why Britain has not thought fit to honour the words of the Prime Minister, who spoke of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States? Currently, only a tiny number of our special forces have been deployed in the teeth of the enemy. Have we run out of personnel in the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines or special forces? Have we run out of Guardsmen and line soldiers trained in desert and mountain warfare? Or have we run out of resolve?

We have not run out of any of those elements. We deploy the right types of forces to do the job that is required of us. As I said, up to 5,000 of Britain's armed forces are actively engaged in the hunt for al-Qaeda and remaining elements of the Taliban. They are ensuring that precisely those tasks to which I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring are completed.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please have a word with Mr. Speaker and ask him if he would be kind enough to consider having discussions with those who arrange our business to ensure that, when a topic of crucial interest and importance arises, there is adequate time to debate it? I make no criticism of the 10-minute limit imposed on speeches by Back Benchers today, but the House of Lords has had two full days to debate the matter of reform. By contrast, the statement that we have just heard will limit our debate to just five hours. I appreciate that the matter is not under Mr. Speaker's direct control, but I am sure it would be much appreciated if, on behalf of the House, he could have some conversations with those who regulate our business.

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but he has already indicated that the matter is really one for business questions.

When I presented the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, I promised that the Commons would have a full opportunity to debate the Government's proposals within the consultation period. We are within the consultation period and this debate fulfils that commitment. The contributions to the debate can inform the period of reflection that must follow the end of the consultation period.

There would not be much point in our providing this day for debate if it did not permit Members who favour a different design for the second Chamber to express those views. I anticipate that we will hear from a number of them this afternoon. The White Paper is, after all, a consultative paper. It invited views on its proposals—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I have hardly begun, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me a little, I promise to give him priority.

The White Paper invited views on its proposals and, on some questions, it set out options for discussion. However, there are two points on which the White Paper is robust and on which the Government will not compromise.

The first is that the hereditary principle has no place in a modern Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Government took the historic step of breaking the dominance of the hereditary vote in the House of Lords. However, there remain 92 hereditary peers. We are the only Parliament in Europe which still permits members of the legislature to vote on the laws of the nation on no other basis than that of privilege of birth. The White Paper finally severs the link between the hereditary peerage and a seat in the House of Lords.

Given the vehemence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the hereditary peers and the support that he has from his colleagues, will he therefore guarantee that there will be a Bill on the reform of the House of Lords during this Parliament, and that under no circumstances will he allow the hereditaries to remain beyond this Parliament?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is indeed our intention to make sure that a Bill is brought before the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the course of this Parliament. That, after all, is the whole point of this debate—to establish the weight of gravity that will enable us to bring forward such a Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I think that I owe it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) to give way first to him, as I promised to give him priority.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does what he is saying about the consultation process mean that if the consultation showed that people wanted a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, the Government would then bring forward such proposals?

I will address the question of a wholly elected second Chamber in the course of my remarks. I have grave concerns about a wholly elected second Chamber for reasons that I shall put before the House. On the broad principle, of course we will listen to what is said during the consultation period. In the period of reflection that will follow, we will see where we can find the centre of gravity in order to move forward with reform.

The second core principle of the White Paper is that the second Chamber of Parliament must reflect the broad political balance in the country. The Conservative party remains the largest single party in the House of Lords, despite successive record defeats in general elections. I hope that, even among the Conservative party, this debate will establish that there is a consensus that a modern second Chamber must more fairly represent the balance of how Britain votes.

That is why the White Paper proposes a new statutory appointments commission that will determine independently the proportion of political appointments to the Lords in line with the distribution of votes for the parties cast at the previous general election. That will remove from the Government of the day the right to determine for themselves the political balance of new appointments. Never again will it be possible for a Government to use their political patronage to guarantee themselves a secure majority in the House of Lords, as the Conservative party did throughout its 18 years in office.

Indeed, given the distribution of votes in general elections, never again will any one party hold an outright majority in the second Chamber. That will make it a real check and balance on the majority in the Commons, which it was not during those 18 years of a Conservative majority in both the Commons and the Lords.

I am confident that the great majority of Members will welcome the removal of the hereditary principle and will support a second Chamber that is more broadly—

rose—

I may well turn out to be wrong. I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.