---

Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for publishing the annual parliamentary calendar today. It is very helpful for Members planning ahead to have such early notice. Now that the Prime Minister has told us that he would like to serve another five years—although I am not sure that the electors will necessarily give him the chance; I certainly hope not—is the Leader of the House thinking of bringing out another of those pseudo-Stalinist five-year plans, this time for parliamentary business? I look forward to hearing about that idea.

I understand why we shall not be sitting next September. Will the right hon. Gentleman treat next year's non-sitting September as a pilot for the future and can he assure the House that he will take the necessary steps to ensure that there is no resulting loss of the time available to scrutinise what the Government are doing?

Yesterday the Prime Minister apologised a little more for the information that he published before the war. Can we expect a statement next week pushing the apology another centimetre or two, perhaps admitting that—no doubt in good faith—he exaggerated the intelligence that he had been given? Surely, it will only be when he makes a full apology for misrepresenting the evidence that the public may begin to trust him again.

The Leader of the House has announced that the Gambling Bill will start its passage through the House. That is extremely welcome, given the worrying effects of unregulated internet gambling on children and the vulnerable. Why, however, was it necessary for that to be reported in the Financial Times today, rather than the Leader of the House simply coming here and telling us what he was doing? The report says:

"Peter Hain, leader of the Commons, is expected to tell MPs that the gambling bill will be introduced into the Commons during the next four weeks. It will then be carried over into the new parliamentary session".

Surely we were entitled to hear that news first, particularly on an issue that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman in the past.

Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the middle east peace process? In all parts of the House, and in the country, there is deep concern about the continuing suffering and death on all sides. Perhaps the
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 427
 
best time to hold such a debate would be after the presidential election, but the House will wish to discuss the situation soon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a full list of Bills and draft Bills that the Government intend to bring forward during the next Session will be published at the time of the Queen's Speech?

Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that details of Members' expenses will be published next week? It would be helpful if he could tell us the date. Those expenses are governed by strict rules of the House and the proper mechanism for raising any questions is by means of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer.

Mr. Hain: I am grateful for some of the points that the shadow Leader of the House raised, especially about the calendar, because one of the reasons why I wanted to bring the information to the House as soon as possible was to allow Members—and, equally importantly, staff—to plan ahead.

May I deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point next? I am grateful to him for raising it. Details of Members' expenses will be published at 3.30 pm next Thursday, as agreed by the Members Estimate Committee. They will be published on the Parliament website, www.parliament.uk. As every Member is aware, the allowances are crucial in enabling MPs to undertake their duties, deal with the wide range of issues brought to them by constituents and represent their constituents' interests in Parliament.

To avoid any possible misinterpretation, I want to emphasise very strongly the point made by the shadow Leader of the House that all such expenses are accounted for in accordance with the strict rules of the House. Both the director of finance and administration and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards have a role in ensuring that those rules are followed and would, I am sure, be happy to answer any inquiries and questions. Each hon. Member, of whatever party, is affected equally, and I trust that no Member, not even a prospective parliamentary candidate, will deal with the disclosure in an irresponsible manner.

The Prime Minister's duration in office is a matter for the electorate in the first instance. After that, he has made clear his intention, with all our support, to serve a full third term. That cannot be clearer.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Iraq war and recycled the tired old attack—the Leader of the Opposition repeated it yesterday—that virtually questions the Prime Minister's integrity. The Prime Minister, with the support of the Cabinet, saw the intelligence that all the other intelligence agencies in the world saw and accepted as accurate. That includes the Russians, the French and the Germans, who disagreed with the decision to go to war. They accepted that the intelligence was accurate and we acted on it in enforcing the will of the United Nations. It does the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition no credit to continue the recycled attack on the integrity of the Prime Minister, who showed a great deal of courage in making a tough decision, as was shown by the
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 428
 
uncovering of the awful evidence of mass graves under Saddam. That evidence justified the decision to go into Iraq in support of United Nations resolutions.

I welcome the fact that the shadow Leader of the House is pleased about the introduction of the gambling measure. It is important that we regulate properly gambling on the internet and by other means. I have made an announcement about the Bill at the first opportunity. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Prime Minister announced in his speech at the Labour party conference that, as soon as the American presidential elections are out of the way, he will seek immediate re-engagement to secure an outcome that will achieve an independent Palestinian state and an Israeli state that is secure from terrorists and other attacks, living side by side. It is the only future for that part of the world. The sooner we engage actively—the Prime Minister has constantly worked for that with the United States Administration—in bringing that outcome to fruit, the better.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would publish the full list of Bills and draft Bills alongside the Queen's Speech. We intend to do that. It is in the interests of the House and the Liaison Committee was grateful for the advance notice of draft Bills that I was able to provide earlier this year.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): As the Leader of the House knows, next year, Britain will hold the presidency of the G8 and the European Union. The Prime Minister has made clear the themes of the G8 presidency—there is even a logo for it—but there has been no clarification of the precise themes for the EU presidency. Can we have an early debate about what the themes should be so that the Government can gauge hon. Members' mood on such an important issue? The Government could then use the presidency to campaign on Europe. When are we likely to have the logo for the presidency?

Mr. Hain: I am not in a position to help my hon. Friend but I welcome his interest in a crucial time when British leadership under the Labour Government will, through the G8 and EU presidencies, again be displayed. He may rest assured that the Prime Minister and our Labour Government will tackle with great vigour and energy all the key challenges that face Europe as well the G8 countries.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): In response to the comments of the Leader of the House, I reassure him that my colleagues and I do not primarily question the Prime Minister's integrity. However, we question his judgment. Would not it be helpful if we could see the full facts, including the Attorney-General's advice, before taking a final decision on the matter?

We, too, welcome what the Leader of the House said about Members' expenses, but we hope that he is not being over-optimistic in assuming that the media will not indulge in misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

The Leader of the House made an announcement about the non-September sittings next year, and I would like to ask him a number of questions about that. Can he confirm that the removal of those two weeks will not
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 429
 
set a precedent, as it is happening due to the one-off need for building works in the House? What will he do if there is pressure on time next year? Will he extend our sittings from July into August—that was the quid pro quo—or will he take time out of the constituency weeks at half-term? Can he assure us that, during the 11 weeks when the House is not sitting, there will be arrangements for Members on both sides of the House to question Ministers and hold them to account?

I have previously congratulated the House of Commons Commission on the excellent annual report that it published recently. Indeed, I have referred to the introduction, Mr. Speaker, in which you say:

"There can be few groups of customers more demanding than 659 Members of Parliament".

I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that this is an extremely important report containing important issues and a great deal of useful information for Members. It is difficult, however, for Members to debate these issues. I and other Members have sought to discover whether we debate the annual report in Westminster Hall. We are spending £140 million in cash outturn terms, and that is clearly a big sum. This place is dependent on holding people who spend taxpayers' money to account—that is our role in life. Surely there must be some way for us to have a debate on this matter. It involves the whole issue of accountability. I think that the Leader of the House might be sympathetic to the idea that, in addition to the dates that he has already given us for Government business in Westminster Hall, there might be an opportunity for us to discuss the matter on a Thursday afternoon. The House authorities advise me that that is the only way in which we can debate this extremely important function of the House.

---