---

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can do more only if it is about next week's business.

Mr. Forth: Mr. Speaker, next week can we finally have the debate on pensions—[Interruption.] It was promised on 20 January by the then Pensions Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He promised a debate in Government time on the Green Paper on pensions that was issued in January. Yet in yesterday's debate the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), said that we would have a White Paper on pensions by the recess. We are now in the bizarre position of having had a Green Paper since the beginning of the year and moving straight to a White Paper before the recess without a proper debate in the interim in Government time led by a Pensions Minister because there still is not a Pensions Minister. Will there be a reshuffle to appoint a Pensions Minister next week and will we have a debate then? That is the question.

5 Jun 2003 : Column 311

I should also like to know whether next week we could have a debate arising from yesterday's Audit Commission report. Does the Leader of the House think that there were perhaps rogue elements in the Audit Commission who said:

"The majority of trusts"—

NHS trusts—

"were finding it difficult to balance their books—some used new money, intended to boost services, to meet underlying financial problems. The majority of trusts were finding it hard to recruit enough extra doctors and nurses"?

The report went on to say:

"it is highly likely that growth monies will have been invested in funding the deficit."

It goes on further to say:

"The Annual Development Plan assumed that growth monies would be used to fund deficits by delaying project starts until the year end."

Those are very serious matters and they have been highlighted by the Audit Commission. I hope that we will have an urgent debate on them because they appear completely to undermine the Government's repeated claims that the NHS is in good health. Can we please have an immediate debate?

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman was obviously so intoxicated with my performance yesterday that he missed the fact that we had a pensions debate. [Hon. Members: "In Government time."] It is funny how quickly Conservatives get worked up. They should take a lesson from Mr. Humphrys who remains calm throughout. Secondly, we have pensions questions next week. We will also probably have a statement next week on pensions. I shall have firmer details on that later specifically to please the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS audit. I always welcome opportunities to debate the NHS in all its aspects, including Audit Commission reports, not least because we are putting in twice as much of an increase than any other Government in the history of the service. We have put in tens of thousands of extra nurses and we have a new hospital building programme. A debate that highlighted the disastrous effects of the 20 per cent. cuts that the Opposition would impose on the health service would be worth having.

On the more important subject that the right hon. Gentleman raised—it is an important subject, and I want to make sure that, whether unwittingly or through mischief, no one misinterprets what I said yesterday, because there are mischievous elements around, some of them malevolent—let me repeat what I said on the "Today" programme. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has also read those comments in the transcript, but he did not share them with the House. I said:

"I have the greatest respect for our intelligence services."

I also said that I know from working with them in Northern Ireland and as Minister for the Armed Forces that they are courageous, loyal, professional, self-sacrificing, committed and dedicated people. Indeed, my life and hundreds—perhaps thousands—of other lives depend on those services.

5 Jun 2003 : Column 312

The people whom I was attacking, whom I am asked to name, I cannot name because they are anonymous. The right hon. Gentleman might ask Mr. Gilligan, the reporter who has been producing reports based on their information, who they are. I do not know them, I do not know their status, but I do know that they have been undermining or attempting to undermine the integrity of our intelligence services, up to and including the Joint Intelligence Committee and its chairman. Anyone who attempts to do that is an enemy of mine, and I believe should be an enemy of those on the Opposition Benches.

I turn to the other question that was asked about the inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been dismissed for its deficiency by the right hon. Gentleman, was set up by the previous Conservative Government, and its terms of reference were established by the previous intelli—I almost said intelligent Conservative Government, which of course would have been a contradiction in terms. The terms of reference were established by the previous Conservative Government. I believe that that Committee consists of people whose seniority, wisdom and integrity should be unquestioned throughout the House, and I certainly do not question it.

It is not true that the Committee's opinions, publications or intended publications can be dismissed at will by the Prime Minister. What the right hon. Gentleman did not say is that—I quote from section 10(7) of the Intelligences Services Act 1994 which established the Committee—

"If it appears to the Prime Minister,"—

and the words that the right hon. Gentleman missed out were

"after consultation with the Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the Services"—

that is, our intelligence services, which the Government are determined to protect—

"or, as the case may be, GCHQ, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report"—

in other words, after consultation with the Committee itself. I believe that we should have confidence in that Committee to discharge its functions.

Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: "Mr. Speaker."] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members get upset. I am one of those, unlike some Opposition Members, who have taken great pleasure in your rise through the House from the time that we were very young men. I have some good news for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and some bad news. As he will have noticed from the photographs this morning, when the Prime Minister comes to the House with a tabbed book, he does not have a tab on it marked "IDS", which says a lot, does it not? The good news, as I suppose it is testimony to the stature of the right hon. Gentleman, is that I do have a tab marked "Eric Forth".

The bad news is that I am able to read transcripts as well. I have read the transcript of the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the Leader of the Opposition

5 Jun 2003 : Column 313

this morning on "Today". Perhaps we can debate this next week. He was asked by Mr. Naughtie, whom I know well

"Why didn't your leader knock Mr. Blair to pulp at the dispatch box yesterday?"

The right hon. Gentleman said:

"Well"—

The transcript then says "(pause)". He added:

"that's a fascinating parliamentary question, and as I come up to celebrating my twentieth anniversary in the House—a great privilege and honour—I can reflect on that."

I will allow right hon. and hon. Members to decide how high in the league table of robust defences of our leaders that answer comes.[Laughter.]

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): The Leader of the House has referred to a transcript from the "Today" show—[Hon. Members: "Show?"] It is often referred to as the John and Jim show. As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the exchanges with the rogue element or perhaps rogue elephant on the Conservative Front Bench, may I draw his attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made no mention during his exchanges on "Today" that the Prime Minister got his war because Conservative Members voted for it? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as Leader of the House, that it is not only the credibility of the Prime Minister that is at stake now, but the credibility of the whole House?

Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would ever accuse the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of being gullible, but it is extremely important that the information that was given to all Members, including the Conservative Members who voted for the war, was accurate. Therefore I ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to arrange for a statement next week, or a debate, on the particular information that was given to the House—I will come to a specific issue in a moment—and the way in which the House will now deal with it.

Has the Leader of the House noticed, for example, that the United States Senate has set up a joint inquiry into these issues? Why cannot we in this place have a joint inquiry involving the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, to ensure that the whole issue is properly covered and that there is proper co-ordination between the two Committees? What arrangements does the Leader of the House intend to make to ensure that the reports of the two Committees are properly co-ordinated and brought to the Floor of the House?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is the credibility of the way in which the House does its business and scrutinises Government that is on the line, as well as, specifically, the credibility of the Prime Minister. It may be that the Prime Minister and the Government will look shifty and slippery if the outcome is that we were led into war under false pretences but, not only that, quite frankly, the House will look silly for taking the decision that we did on false information.

I ask the Leader of the House specifically to consider the issue raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the former Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister. He asked specifically about the

5 Jun 2003 : Column 314

issue of the purchase by Iraq of uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister said that he was

"not in a position to say whether"—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 102, c. 154.]

that information, on which the advice was given to the House, was correct.

On 24 September, the Prime Minister said:

"we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 4.]

That was repeated in the so-called dodgy dossier, which said:

"We judge Iraq has sought . . . "

uranium.

On 28 January, President Bush said:

"The British Government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Obviously he was taking his advice from the British Government. However, on 7 March, at the United Nations Security Council, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that the reports were not authentic. Hans Blix called them a falsification. On 2 June, Colin Powell said that he did not believe that there was "solid enough" authentication.

When will we get an answer to the question of the previous Foreign Secretary? Can we have it next week?

---