---

Gun Crime

20. Mrs. Betty Williams (Conwy): What guidelines the Director of Public Prosecutions issues on the prosecution of gun crime. [115016]

The Solicitor-General: When considering a case involving guns, the Crown Prosecution Service is governed by the code for Crown prosecutors. In addition, the DPP has issued guidance to prosecutors relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.

Mrs. Williams : I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. She will be aware that people in Wales and the rest of the UK have been concerned for a long time about gun crime. Does she agree that the recent gun amnesty exercise was very successful, and a step in the right direction? Will she say what more can be done to build on that success?

The Solicitor-General: I am well aware of the widespread concern in Wales and England about the increasing use of guns—by gangs, as part of their business in drugs and organised crime, and by individuals, who now carry guns much more regularly. I know that there is a problem in Wales, but there are also particular problems in London and Manchester. Again, it is a matter of the police and the CPS working together, and of having the right substantive law. In the case of gun crime, it is also a matter of supporting witnesses. It is often very difficult for victims or witnesses to feel that they can come forward, as they fear that they will be intimidated if they give evidence against a gang. We have been working with the Home Office and the police to make sure that people prepared to come forward to enforce the law against guns will be protected by the criminal justice system, in support of prosecutions.

22 May 2003 : Column 1153

Business of the House

12.31 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:

Monday 2 June—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 3 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Fire Services Bill.

Wednesday 4 June—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. Until 4 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Pensions Crisis", followed by a debate on the euro. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

Thursday 5 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.

Friday 6 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 9 June—Second Reading of the Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 10 June—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable Energy Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Wednesday 11 June—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 12 June—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 13 June—Private Members Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for June will be as follows:

Thursday 5 June—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Human Rights Annual Report 2002.

Thursday 12 June—Debate on reports from the Environmental Audit Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee on energy issues.

Thursday 19 June—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on affordable housing.

Thursday 26 June—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa.

Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.

It will not surprise you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have brought with me an extract from the New Statesman that I think will interest the House. If I may, however, I should like in that context to do something

22 May 2003 : Column 1154

that you know I am very reluctant to do—that is, quote myself. [Hon. Members: "Come on!"] Well, it is usually good value.

On 15 May, at column 462 of Hansard, I said that the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) had

"contradicted each other completely on the vital matter of the advice that the Attorney-General had given the Government about the post-war Iraq settlement."

I went on to remind the House that the Foreign Secretary had said that

"all the actions that we have taken have been taken strictly in accordance with legal advice";

but pointed out that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood had said that she believed

"that the UK could and should have respected the Attorney-General's advice."—[Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 462.]

My question—I hope the Leader of the House will either clarify this today or make provision in our business for it to be clarified as a matter of urgency—is about the fact that in the New Statesman we have what appears to be an authentic document; it is headed "Confidential", addressed to the Prime Minister and entitled "Iraq: Authorisation for an Interim Administration". It is allegedly from Lord Goldsmith QC, the Attorney-General, and is dated 26 March 2003.

I shall read two brief extracts from the document to show its importance. It states, and this is quoting the Attorney-General:

"my view is that a further Security Council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its Government."

Later, it states that

"the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective, the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation".

On the face of it, those are astonishing revelations. If they are true, they set completely at odds with one another what the Foreign Secretary told us and what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood—a former Secretary of State for International Development—told us. This is a serious matter. It goes to the heart of our constitution; it goes to the heart of the responsibilities of the House; and I challenge the Leader of the House to tell us whether that document is authentic. If it is not, presumably we can set the matter aside. If it is authentic, however, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, or will we now get the full advice given by the Attorney-General at each stage of the Iraq episode?

I should like the Leader of the House to provide some time for the Prime Minister to come to the House immediately after the recess to give some explanations and, indeed, apologies for the following matters. First, in PMPs on 14 May—[Hon. Members: "PMPs?"] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies. The Prime Minister said:

"What is very clear, as the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted, is that he"—

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

"wants people to say no to European enlargement".

22 May 2003 : Column 1155

That was the Prime Minister's accusation. Well, how was it that, last night, on the Bill to give effect to the enlargement—the European Union (Accessions) Bill—every Member of Parliament, including all the Conservative Members, voted for enlargement of the European Union? Patently, the Prime Minister was pathetically wrong, so will he please come to the House and admit it, and tell us where he got that astonishing assertion, which, within 24 hours, was proved to be completely wrong?

It gets worse. The Prime Minister said that the Conservative party

"is now opposed not just to the single currency but to accession by the 10 new states",

which we have just demonstrated to be nonsense. He went on to say:

"There is no point in his saying that he"—

my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition—

"is in favour of accession but opposed to the European Convention, which is necessary to make the accession work."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]

That is another of the Prime Minister's favourite little ploys. But, Mr. Speaker, you will know, because you study these matters, that the Library of the House of Commons, on page 51 of research paper 03/48, states:

"While the Convention is looking at reforms to help make a larger Union function more efficiently and transparently, it has not been part of the enlargement process itself . . . The Convention and its outcome are not prerequisites for accession, the sole legal basis for which is the Accession Treaty."

The Prime Minister was wrong—plain wrong, factually wrong—and the House of Commons Library says so. Will the Prime Minister come and make another apology to the House for being completely wrong again?

It gets worse. [Hon. Members: "Oh no!"] Oh yes. Because in PMPs yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

"The true agenda of the right hon. Gentleman"—

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

"and many other Conservative Members is to get this country out of the European Union."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1005.]

We know that the Prime Minister said that in his now notorious election address when he stood for election in 1983, so he may have been thinking of his own words, but my challenge to the Leader of the House is this: can he produce any Conservative manifesto, any Conservative policy document or any statement by a Conservative spokesman that bears out what the Prime Minister said? We need time in the House for that to be clarified, and I want the Leader of the House to do so as a matter of urgency because those sorts of distortions cannot be allowed to continue; they must be either apologised for or at the very least clarified, and the Government must provide the time for that to be done as a matter of urgency.

It has come to my attention that there is at least the possibility that two battalions of our wonderful military in Iraq may find that their home leave is about to be postponed so that they may assist in Baghdad. The Leader of the House may or may not be able to tell us whether or not that is true, but at the very least I want him to guarantee to the House that, in such an

22 May 2003 : Column 1156

eventuality, the Secretary of State for Defence will make an urgent statement to the House because the matter is obviously of great importance to the military and, moreover, to their families. I hope that we will be kept fully informed, within the constraints of time and the coming recess.

There is another question that affects the Ministry of Defence: what is happening in the Congo? If there is a possibility of our military being involved in the Congo in any way at all, not least in connection with the European security and defence policy—[Interruption.]

---