---

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): My colleagues and I share concern about the fate of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Bill. However, I believe that the Leader of the House made a slip of the tongue when he said that it would come back to the House later this month—that might be difficult. I hope that he accepts that the Conservatives have not tabled any amendments so far, which may be significant.

I hope that the Leader of the House can give an undertaking that we will have an early statement from the Law Officers as soon as we return giving full details of the Attorney-General's assessment of the legality of the invasion of Iraq. He will be aware that this morning the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, made it clear that in his view the invasion of Iraq by US and UK troops was illegal. The House must be told whether the legal justification on which it made a decision on 18 March last year was, or was not, misleading.

May we have an early statement, before the debate in October on defence matters, about the extremely important report by the Public Accounts Committee on the failures of equipment in Iraq, which offers devastating corroboration of the fact that failures by the Ministry of Defence led to unnecessary deaths of British troops, including Sergeant Steven Roberts from Wadebridge in north Cornwall? The Leader of the House will recall that I have raised that issue on a number of occasions, and it is now quite clear from the pathologist's report as well as from the Select Committee report that the Ministry must have on its conscience the death not only of Sergeant Roberts but of others. It is outrageous that this very week troops in his unit are threatened with court martial, when the Secretary of State for Defence should take responsibility. Our armed forces were sent into an illegal war with inadequate equipment, which is surely a matter of serious concern for the House.

Mr. Hain: I quite clearly recall saying that the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Bill would return to the House later "next month", so I hope that that satisfied any need for clarification.
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1458
 

On the question of Iraq, the hon. Gentleman gave a selective interpretation of what the UN Secretary-General said. He made his position clear, but from the outset the advice of the Attorney-General to the Government made it clear that authority to use force against Iraq derived from the combined effect of UN resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, all of which were adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security.

The hon. Gentleman raised the PAC report, which is important and certainly pointed out shortcomings. In an expedition fraught with danger and which required a rapid deployment, our forces were praised internationally for the excellence of their operation, but it was inevitable that there would be shortcomings, some of which have been reported. However, the report clearly says that the Ministry of Defence

"deployed a large, highly capable force to the Gulf in around 10 weeks, less than half the time it had taken to send a broadly similar sized force for the 1990–91 Gulf War."

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pick one or two shortcomings that need to be remedied and paint a wholly critical picture that is not justified by the report.

The death of Sergeant Roberts is, of course, a terrible tragedy. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised it, but I question the tone in which he did so. Whose side is he on in the battle in Iraq? Is he on the side of creating a democratic Iraq in which its people can take control of their lives for the very first time for at least a generation, or does he want to carp and criticise, playing into the hands of the terrorists who are seeking to undermine our forces there?

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Notwithstanding the advice that you gave, Mr. Speaker, on the future provision for consideration of yesterday's events, my understanding is that professional advice is being sought now. Would it be in order to ask the Leader of the House to confirm that? In addition, can he explain the remit of what is happening now?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling on this matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Everybody can talk about it except MPs? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): I congratulate the Leader of the House on his recent comments in The Observer, in which he said that he thought that there was unnecessary interference in, for example, dietary and food supplements and herbal remedies. He said that everybody understands that they must be safe, but that Brussels has dealt with the matter in a particularly bureaucratic and heavy-handed fashion. Is that the Government's view as well as his, and if so, will he make time available on the Floor of the House for us to debate these issues and to identify how to resolve an extremely unfortunate and undesirable situation?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the usual way, and I would
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1459
 
certainly encourage him to do so. If what he is saying is that he shares my view that the 20 million people who now rely on dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals, to improve their health and lifestyle should be able to continue to do so, I absolutely agree, and any of the new regulations introduced by the European Union should not stand in the way.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): If the House of Commons is to be limited in the things that it can discuss, may I ask the Leader of the House to undertake an urgent investigation into the cost of the past two weeks? Will he make public before the House takes decisions exactly how much the recall has cost and what delay there has been to contracts? When he says that this is not a matter for the Government, may I remind him that the House authorities have to maintain this building during the time when the House is in recess? It is very much a matter for the Government and the House of Commons to consider when we are recalled the cost and implications and, if I may say so, the effect on other matters that are at hand.

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that this is a House matter. In saying that it was a Government matter, I assume that she meant that, ultimately, the expenditure for the House is voted from the Treasury's funds. I shall certainly discuss this matter with the House authorities, and ask them to provide information on the cost of recalling the House in September. All that information will be available for her and other hon. Members when we reach a decision. I have an open mind on this matter, which is a matter for the House, and we should take that decision bearing in mind the experience that we have had in the past two years of September sittings.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): The Leader of the House did not answer the question on Sessional Orders asked by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. Does the Leader of the House agree that Parliament square has been dirty and defaced for far too long, and that it would be sensible, particularly in the light of yesterday's events, to have a look at the Sessional Orders with a view to legislating at an early date?

Mr. Hain: I hope to come back to the House on this matter fairly soon after we return. I am well aware that it has been dragging on for far too long, and the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have pressed me very closely on it. I am also conscious that the Procedure Committee's report on Sessional Orders has not yet been debated, and it will be debated soon after we return.

As I have already announced to the House, the Home Office is currently consulting on the central issue of what powers the authorities need for Parliament square. That consultation will end on Friday 8 October. I think that it would be only right to reflect on the outcome of the consultation. Once considered views have been expressed, we will be in a position to report back to the House. As the Procedure Committee report outlined, the Government do not have responsibility for Parliament square. Responsibility for the square rests with a number of authorities: Westminster city council,
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1460
 
the Mayor of London and the Highways Agency. Clearly, the situation that occurred yesterday is not acceptable. The right to protest must be preserved, but access to the Palace of Westminster must be guaranteed and security around it must be preserved, and we need to balance those principles.

Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill returns to the House shortly? It is an enormously important measure, the first on domestic violence for more than 30 years, and many of its remedies are urgently needed. Will he please ensure that we are able to complete this business as soon as possible?

---