---

Mr. Hain: First, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the whole House's horror at what happened to Anna Lindh. I am also grateful to him for reminding us of the terrible terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September two years ago. I agree with all the points that he made, and that we should never forget those who died or ever let up on the fight against terrorism.

11 Sept 2003 : Column 477

On the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the truth is that it is urgently needed before the end of the Session. I hope that the Conservative Opposition will start giving us exactly the kind of bipartisan support for bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland that we gave them when we were in opposition. I am afraid that such support is unfortunately often lacking from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.

On the Intelligence and Security Committee report, may I first congratulate the Committee on a thorough piece of work? Many senior Members of the House from all parties sit on it and it demonstrates the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that the Prime Minister asked it to report on the matter is a further example of the importance that we as a Government and I as the Leader of the House attach to parliamentary accountability on such important issues.

May I also attack and deprecate the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Defence Secretary? We had a mendacious and misleading leak yesterday from the Committee. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed we did. It was an attempt to pre-empt the Committee's full report. As a member of the Committee said at the press conference this morning, facts have a habit of getting in the way of conspiracy theories. The Leader of the Opposition joined the conspiracy theory in the most disreputable fashion yesterday and he has endorsed that stance again today, to his discredit.

The truth is that we have an outstanding Defence Secretary who provided brilliant leadership in a difficult war against Iraq. I am sure that he has the full support of the House in continuing to combat terrorism and the remnants of the Saddam regime in Iraq. I just want to say this to the shadow Leader of the House: it is wrong to try to pre-empt an independent judicial inquiry as the Opposition are seeking to do. There will, of course, be an opportunity to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary this afternoon.

On the Wicks report, the Government have made it clear that we endorse virtually everything in it. [Interruption.] Well, we have said that we cannot accept two things, and I am sure that everyone would agree that it is sensible for the Government to have reservations about them. One is the number of special advisers. It is not sensible to put an arbitrary limit on that. The other is the right of the Prime Minister to appoint key staff to ensure that directions can be given so that the Government's business is conducted in a sensible and orderly fashion. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House is muttering. His colleague, the deputy shadow Leader of the House, was a special adviser—as it happens, to Norman Lamont, although I am not sure that that is a good advertisement for special advisers. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was also a special adviser, in addition to jumping up and down in his usual enthusiastic way. We should concentrate on the facts and not let the Opposition's allegations get in the way.

On the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, the truth is that it has been given full parliamentary scrutiny, and that will continue to be the case. It has received no more and no less parliamentary scrutiny than Bills received over the years under the old

11 Sept 2003 : Column 478

procedure. If any matters need to be considered in that regard, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Ministers will do so.

As for the rest of the Session, we will consider the workings of the September sitting. I notice that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not criticise it. I take his silence as an endorsement of the policies that we have adopted in the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): We obviously associate ourselves with comments on the assassination of the Swedish Foreign Minister and the anniversary of the 11 September terrorism attacks.

There is a precedent for handling Intelligence and Security Committee reports, set by the report on the Bali terrorist bombing. In that case, the Foreign Secretary made an immediate statement in the House, followed by an hour's questioning. In denying the need for an early statement on the latest report, is the Leader of the House saying that it is less important, or is no one prepared to make that statement? Surely at the very least, the Prime Minister should come to the House to be accountable in the way described by the Leader of the House a moment ago. The report is about not just one personality—the Secretary of State for Defence—but the whole rot at the centre of the Government.

For example, paragraph 83 raises an important issue. It is apparent that part of the Prime Minister's statement that was intended for his foreword was subsequently excluded. The exclusion of

"The case I make is not that Saddam could launch a nuclear attack on London or another part of the UK (He could not)"

from the eventual introduction to the dossier is very misleading. Paragraph 86 states that there was a tendency for the document to be

"unhelpful to an understanding of this issue."

There is also the extraordinary issue of paragraph 103, which has been removed from the report. The introduction says that if anything has been blocked out by No. 10, it will be marked by an asterisk, but there is no asterisk where paragraph 103 should be. What has happened to it? As it pre-empts what is said in paragraph 104, it is extremely important that we are given an explanation of what was intended, because the Committee concludes:

"We regard the initial failure by the MoD to disclose that some staff had put their concerns in writing to their line managers as unhelpful and potentially misleading."

What was going to be put in paragraph 103? Finally, in paragraph 135, the February dossier and the surrounding publicity are described by the Committee as "counter-productive".

The question still remains whether the House was conned by the two dossiers. Were the public conned by the two dossiers? We know that those on the Conservative Front Bench were not conned, because the leader of the Conservative party wanted to attack Iraq and to follow President Bush come what may, even if the Government did not. The House deserves a full statement now on the issues that have been raised by this important report.

Mr. Hain: The House has had statement after statement from the Government—from my right hon.

11 Sept 2003 : Column 479

Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary—on Iraq and all the matters around it. An independent judicial inquiry is under way. Lord Hutton will report, and that report will be fully debated in the House. That is where we should leave it. On issues to do with detail and paragraph 103 and all the rest of it, the hon. Gentleman is obviously able to ask his colleague the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about that detail. The truth is that many distinguished Members of this place are sitting on the Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not making a criticism of them as to the report that they produced.

It would not have been known from what the shadow Leader of the House and from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the report exonerated the Government from all the main charges that have been made against us and endorsed the thrust and the content of the dossier. That is the central result of the report, although it would never be guessed from the attempt to generate froth and excitement over the past few minutes.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I take my right hon. Friend back to the monitoring commission Bill? It is unacceptable and an abuse that it will be railroaded through the House in one sitting. I remind my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the House of Lords will have two days on the Bill. That underlines the fact that this place has become a charade in terms of law making. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on that.

The Bill is a major piece of legislation affecting the future of the United Kingdom and the problems of Northern Ireland. If it is right for the House of Lords to have two full days to consider it and an opportunity to digest and reflect over the weekend, how is it right that this place will have the Bill bounced through in one day, bearing in mind the row and the notes left on my right hon. Friend's file by his predecessor, who said that this would not happen again when we had a similar abuse a few months ago involving the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to the vigilance with which my hon. Friend always holds Governments and everybody to account. I am sure that he is not using the procedures of the House of Lords as a model for this House. The monitoring commission Bill is a much-needed measure. It is very important, as I know my hon. Friend accepts, in taking forward the Northern Ireland peace process. There will be a late sitting on the day that the Bill is considered—proceedings will run on well beyond the moment of interruption—because it is so important to take the measure through at this stage.

---