---

Speaker's Statement

12.32 pm

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement about identity passes. Members will appreciate that security issues are a source of deep concern and the provision of these passes is a basic security measure, which helps to protect us all.

Our security staff cannot be expected to identify all those who have access to the parliamentary estate. Although I recognise that it is impractical for Members to wear their passes at all times, it is essential for them to carry their passes and to co-operate with the security staff if they are asked to produce them.

Members are personally responsible for the consistent wearing of passes by their staff. Members of the parliamentary Press Gallery and staff of all other organisations attached to the House must wear their passes at all times.

I ask Members to set an example and to give their full support to the Serjeant at Arms and to all our security staff who carry out their admirable work to make the parliamentary estate a safe place in which to work for Members, Members' staff and all the staff of the House.

11 Sept 2003 : Column 474

Business of the House

12.33 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business of the House for next week is as follows:

Monday 15 September—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill.

Tuesday 16 September—Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced, followed, if necessary, by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.

Wednesday 17 September—Consideration of an allocation of time motion followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill [Lords] followed, if necessary, by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.

Thursday 18 September—Second Reading of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords]. Followed, if necessary, by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.

Friday 19 September—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week after the conference recess will include:

Tuesday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].

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

Thursday 16 October—Debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on reducing regional disparities in prosperity.

Thursday 23 October—Debate on the report from the Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee on the Children and Family Court Advisory Service.

Thursday 30 October—Debate on the report from the International Development Committee on Trade and Development at the WTO: Issues for Cancun.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will wish to endorse what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in expressing our shock and horror at the murder of Sweden's Foreign Minister Anna Lindh and in offering our condolences to her family, her friends and the Swedish people. As the Foreign Secretary said, she represented everything that is wonderful about Sweden and about Europe. As Europe Minister, I saw what an inspirational and internationally respected Foreign Minister she was. She was a delightful and warm person, a joy to work with and widely seen as a future Swedish Prime Minister. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. Forth: May I thank the Leader of the House and echo on behalf of the official Opposition his remarks on the ghastly events in Sweden and the loss of the Swedish Foreign Minister? On this day, 11 September, and at this hour, may I also say that our thoughts must surely be with our friends and allies in the United States, bearing in mind how many people tragically lost their lives on

11 Sept 2003 : Column 475

this day two years ago—people of many nationalities and many different beliefs? They will surely never be forgotten.

May I ask the Leader of the House to elaborate on the Government's reasoning for insisting that all stages of the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill are to be forced through this House in one day? He has announced that as if it were a fait accompli, yet legislating at that speed is surely one of the things about which we should always be most reluctant. We all know that we legislate in haste and repent at leisure—at least, we do not repent; the citizens usually repent. Will the Leader of the House therefore do us the courtesy of telling us why legislation of this importance, complexity and controversiality needs to be put through the House as quickly as he is suggesting?

I attended this morning's Intelligence and Security Committee press conference, and I am hoping that the Leader of the House will tell us when we will have an opportunity properly to discuss that matter in its own right. I suspect that he will probably say that there is a defence debate this afternoon, as indeed there is, and I would hope that it will not be necessarily pre-empted by a discussion about the Intelligence and Security Committee, which deserves time of its own in this House, not least because, for example, the report includes such phrases as:

"We are disturbed that after the first evidence session . . . the Defence Secretary decided against giving instructions for a letter to be written".

At paragraph 110, the report continues:

"We believe that this uncertainty should have been highlighted to give a balanced view of Saddam's chemical and biological capacity."

The following paragraph states:

"This should have been highlighted in the dossier."

Paragraph 112 states:

"The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning"—

referring to the famous 45 minutes.

I mention those few extracts almost at random to illustrate the amount of important and controversial material in the Intelligence and Security Committee report that is damning of the Government, their whole approach to the matter and the Secretary of State for Defence in particular. Will the Leader of the House therefore tell us when we will have the opportunity for a proper, measured debate on this document—not just minutes after it has been released, or first thoughts, as I have expressed briefly today—and a measured response by the House and the Government to the absolute dynamite, if I may put it that way, that it contains?

Talking of that, I was somewhat puzzled that in PMEs yesterday—

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): PMEs?

Mr. Forth: Prime Minister's evasions. At column 320 of Hansard yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

"I think it quite wrong that we make any assumptions until we see the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which is to be presented to me tomorrow. It would be wrong to comment on it before that is done."—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 320.]

11 Sept 2003 : Column 476

That is what he said yesterday. However, funnily enough, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 September—the day before yesterday—to say, very familiarly:

"Dear Tony,


Enclosed with this letter is the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report".

How is it that the Chairman may write to "Dear Tony" on Tuesday only for "Dear Tony" to say on Wednesday that he would not see the report until today? There is surely some mistake and I hope that the Leader of the House will ask the Prime Minister to come to us this afternoon to explain how he got it so wrong. Perhaps this is another piece of evidence showing that we cannot believe a word that the Prime Minister says any more.

Smuggled in through the written ministerial statements today—it is hidden down the Order Paper at statement No. 8—is:

"Prime Minister: Publication of the Government's response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life."

That is an important matter and an important report and, given its significance, will the Leader of the House guarantee that we will be given the opportunity of a full debate on it and all the material it covers, and that it will not be swept under any carpets or rushed through in any way? I am not asking for his guarantee of an immediate debate, but for time in the House of Commons to deal with the matter.

Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to think again about the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. He will recall that way back in January the Bill emerged from its Standing Committee—those proceedings were truncated and guillotined as, regrettably, they all are these days—after only 30 of its 90 clauses had been debated and only one of its schedules discussed. After a gap of about six months, the Government eventually came back to the House and said that they wanted to carry over this large and controversial Bill and recommit it to Standing Committee. They admitted then that a lot of new material would be imported subsequently to the Bill.

We now learn—the Leader of the House is telling us with his usual insouciance—that the Bill will have only eight further Committee sittings despite the fact that we already know that there will be about 35 new amendments and apparently a lot more material on which to vote. Will he please think again and not follow his predecessors' regrettable habit of being party to the poor and inadequate consideration of such Bills in Committee because of lack of time? We have already been round the track once on this and the scrutiny has been shown to be completely inadequate. Please may we have a lot more time to consider the Bill in the future?

---