Will the Deputy Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is on Government business in New Zealand. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to the House for his absence today.

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 15 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a ways and means resolution on the Pensions Bill, followed by a debate on Thames Gateway on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Tuesday 16 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Pensions Bill, followed by procedure and associated motions relating to the Hunting Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments on the Hunting Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 17 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Civil Contingencies Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 18 November—Consideration of Lords amendments.

The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.

The House may like to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the exchequer announced this morning that the pre-Budget report will be on Thursday 2 December.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for the business. Will he join me in welcoming the Sikh community to Westminster today? Has he seen early-day motion 1890, which commemorates the thousands of victims of the anti-Sikh pogroms of November 1984, acknowledges progress made since then—the current Prime Minister of India is a Sikh—and calls for an inquiry into what happened at that time?

[That this House remembers with sadness the 20th anniversary of the November 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms when thousands of innocent Sikhs were killed or injured across India; notes with pleasure the many positive changes that have since taken place in India where the current Prime Minister is a Sikh; and expresses the hope that the Government of India will continue to pursue the path of reconciliation in relation to those events by instituting an inquiry into them that can bring closure to the victims and relatives of those who suffered at that time.]

Would it be possible to have a debate about that in the short amount of time remaining before Prorogation?

Is the hon. Gentleman able to give any further news about how the full list of Bills and draft Bills which the Government expect to introduce in the next Session will be published at the time of the Queen's Speech?

Although we welcomed the enlargement of the European Union on 1 May, the number of workers coming to the United Kingdom from the new EU countries is far higher than expected. The Home Secretary promised to review the Government's open-door policy if that happened. When can we expect a statement from the Home Secretary with his response?

Where is the draft Civil Service Bill?

Can we have a statement from the Deputy prime minister accepting the verdict of the north-east referendum and committing the Government to abolition of the unelected regional assemblies?Were not the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday, when he immediately backed those unpopular bodies, saying that they were "perfectly good", a complete denial of democracy? Was that not in sharp contrast with his attitude to the future of the Scottish regiments, when he refused to give an answer and left them dangling in the wind? Is that not a disgraceful way to treat the Black Watch when they are fighting for their country? Is it right that their homecoming is to be "Thank you and goodbye to the regiment"? Can we have an urgent statement on their future?

Finally, as we remember those who gave their lives for us, can we have an urgent statement about one group of veterans in particular—those who sailed in the Russian convoys and deserve a separate Arctic campaign medal? Three hundred and sixty hon. Members in all parts of the House—a Majority—support the campaign. Can we have a positive response from the Government today?

I confirm that I have read early-day motion 1890 and support the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Sikh community. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot debate the matter before the end of the Session, because the business has been allocated for the three or four remaining days.

On the publication of the list of Bills and draft Bills, I confirm that, as in the past, we will place the list in the Library to ensure that as much information as possible is available to the House. On draft Bills, as much information as possible is being made available to the Liaison Committee to allow discussions to take place.

On the Civil Service Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has announced that the consultation document, which includes a draft Bill, will be published by the end of the Session. I cannot confirm the exact publication date, so the Shadow Leader of the House must wait for a few more days.

Turning to the political points made by the shadow Leader of the House, it is simply scaremongering to say that people from the EU accession countries will flood this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made statements on the matter, and I shall give the House some facts. Some 45 per cent. of the 90,000 people who have registered under the scheme were already in the country—the scheme has brought out into the open and made legal what was perhaps illegal.

Our economy requires those people, some of whom, as the head of the British Hospitality Association said yesterday, work in hospitality. Only 16 of those 90,000 people have successfully applied for income-related benefits, and only 14 of them have been given a council house. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, the people on the registered scheme have already contributed £20 million to this country in income tax and national insurance and £120 million of output to the economy. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a good record on that matter.

It is not true, as some newspapers stated this morning, that the Government claimed that only 13,000 people would come into the country under the scheme. That estimate came from University College London, and it was a net figure including both immigration and emigration. The scaremongers who claimed that more than 1 million people would flood into the country were absolutely wrong, and the intent behind their scaremongering has been exposed.

On the north-east regional assembly, I recall the Deputy prime minister coming to this House and making a statement. [Interruption.] I think that Conservative Members want to hear more from the Deputy Prime Minister, which would be good. The Deputy Prime Minister could then repeat the figures on the enormous investment that is taking place through the regional development agencies, which were set up by a Conservative Government and which Conservative Members are happy to criticise.

It was interesting to see the shadow Leader of the House make up another policy on the hoof. The Conservative party has revealed that it would abolish the regional assemblies. Conservative Members criticise us for holding a referendum to enhance democracy, but they want to take away the only vestige of democracy that holds the quangos to account in the regions.

The Prime Minister has answered the question on Scottish regiments and the Black Watch. The decision must be made in the proper way. the army and the armed forces will consider the various options to ensure that the extra money that is being provided for the defence of our country is spent in the most appropriate way. A decision will be taken shortly.

On the Arctic convoys, I think that the hon. Gentleman made a point on behalf of the whole House. The Prime Minister responded to that in yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time in as positive a way as was possible, given the procedures that he has to follow.

To finish on a non-partisan point, today is of course Remembrance day, and I join the hon. Gentleman in his remarks on the tributes that have rightly been paid all over the country.

Will the Government find time to have a serious debate on who regulates the regulators? ofcom is about to draw up plans to create unfair conditions for a publicly owned industry which will cause the universal service obligation to be threatened by cherry-picking from other people. Ofgem has created a situation whereby gas prices have risen by 70 per cent., with industries in this country paying 34p a therm and the same suppliers selling gas to the continent at 25p a therm. We face the prospect of the Health and Safety Executive interpreting EU regulations on Soveso 2 in terms of land use planning in such a way as to destroy the development potential of much of the UK and to impinge on many industries in the manufacturing sector. When will we look at who regulates the regulator in order to get regulation to work for the UK, not against it?

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. The answer is that we regulate the regulators, which are set up by statute and are obliged to report not only to the Government but to the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no time for a debate on the matter before the end of the Session, which is only three or four days away.

The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that my right hon. Friend Mr. Kennedy has asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on his return from Washington about the outcome of his talks with President Bush. That is extremely important, especially in view of the renewed momentum that we all hope that there must be in terms of the middle east peace process, to which the Leader of House made explicit reference in answer to me last week.

In the light of the death of President Arafat this morning, in the aftermath of which there could be great instability in the middle east until a new leadership is in place, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm whether the Prime Minister is prepared to make a statement and to answer questions on these issues early next week.

The Minister in the other place with responsibility for the Gambling Bill said today that, in order to understand the changes that the Government intend to make in response to the concerns of Members of this House, it is important to take account of the tax regime for gambling. That implies a change to that regime. Will the Chancellor of the exchequer make an urgent statement next week on any such changes that might be relevant to the Bill? Members of the Standing Committee will need to know about that before they can further consider it.

As the business statement indicates, for the next few weeks we will be in the period of parliamentary ping-pong between the Commons and the Lords. I am sure that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House have read with care the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, which is chaired by the noble Lord Norton of Louth, entitled "Parliament and the Legislative Process". Can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us when the Government will make a statement on the extremely important proposals in that report, which shows that there are mechanisms for dealing with precisely the problems that we now face in managing the relationship between the two Houses and in dealing with the legislative process sensibly and intelligently?

I shall deal with the last point first, if I may. The report that has come from the other place is very important, as the membership of that Committee has perhaps the greatest expertise that is available to us. I would not want to cross Baroness Gould of Potternewton on procedures in either House—

Or on anything.

My hon. Friend has pinched my line. Lord Holme, despite his political affiliations—some would say because of them—is very knowledgeable on these processes and procedures, and I acknowledge his expertise. The report is important, and the Government response to it will be taken seriously. It is in line with a growing consensus in this House and the other place that the provision of draft Bills, carry-over and pre-legislative scrutiny is slowly and surely working to the benefit of us all. This report takes that forward, so the response will be serious, and I look forward to further debates on it.

On the gambling tax, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making—as the House will know, the Standing Committee is currently considering the Bill, and Members have requested information. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware of the point that has just been made.

On the question of the Prime Minister's trip to Washington, obviously, it comes at an important time. I was pleased at the hon. Gentleman's support for the Prime Minister's efforts to ensure that the middle east peace process, and the situation in Palestine and Israel, is at the top of the world affairs agenda, and I acknowledge his welcome of the Prime Minister's efforts to push the President in that direction.

The hon. Gentleman asked particularly about the situation in Palestine. It is only right that I should add to the comments made by the Prime Minister to express deep sympathy and condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of Yasser Arafat. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom Government will continue to strive to achieve the commitment to a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure state of Israel. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether the Prime Minister would be making a statement—I am not able to answer that. Next week is very crowded in terms of business, as he is aware. It is fair to say that the Prime Minister has a strong record of coming to the House after international summits, and I am sure that he will take the earliest opportunity to inform the House of progress.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will find time in the packed agenda between now and Prorogation to deal with the sub-Post Office closures happening in his Constituency and mine, with specific reference to the £300 million that the Government allocated, in the urban sub-post offices revitalisation programme, for post offices that would otherwise be shut because they were economically unviable in very deprived urban areas such as Rochdale and Oldham. Will he share my concern at the way the Post Office is dealing in a very cavalier manner with sub-post office closures, when the clear intent of the Government and the whole House, in voting for that legislation, was that the viability of sub-post offices in the most deprived urban areas should be safeguarded? Will he share my concern that the Post Office seems to be cavalier about the intent of the House?

Certainly, I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is extremely helpful in the circumstances. I have seen the early-day motion that she and other Members have signed relating to post offices in north Manchester and in her Constituency. It is the fourth early-day motion tabled about post offices in the past two weeks in which Members have raised specific concerns. The other side of the coin, as has been acknowledged, is that the Government have provided huge amounts of money to ensure that the Post Office can get through the transitional phase that it is undergoing at the moment. In those consultations, the difficulty, as has been acknowledged in debates in the House, is that post offices are often private small businesses and must enter into arrangements with the Post Office, particularly if they are loss-making, which creates a difficult set of circumstances. I will pass on her comments to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

With Land Rover negotiating quality control, troubles at Jaguar and worries at Rover, can we have a debate in Government time, replied to by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on the subject of the motor industry in the west midlands? And might I tell the hon. Gentleman that this is the second time of asking?

As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a big fan of his. Having read his book, in which he campaigns for the motor industry, I can say that in raising these issues he is at least consistent.

The future of the motor industry is, of course, important to us all. Although there will be no time for a debate during this Session, manufacturing is a priority for the Government. It is important to note from last year's figures that although manufacturing employment has fallen—there have been worrying job losses in that sector—output continues to rise, as do productivity, exports and research and development. Despite the problems, the overall picture is very good.

May I draw attention to early-day motion 1898?

[That this House notes that the new formula for Child Support Agency (CSA) maintenance calculations has now been in place since April 2003, which is more than enough time to stabilise the system; considers that existing cases have experienced a long and avoidable delay under the old rules; and calls upon the Minister to instruct the CSA to take the necessary steps to bring in the new, simplified and fairer method of assessment for all cases with immediate effect.]

The motion is entitled "Fair and equal treatment for all CSA non-resident parents".

I know that I speak for many Members when I point out that, a year and a half after the introduction of a simplified system for child support payments, we are still struggling. Many of our constituents still tell us of serious problems, all of which affect children and parents and, I am sure, cause considerable distress. Will my hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate?

I should mention that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on this issue. The motion is certainly important. The Child Support Agency continues to work with EDS, the computer supplier, to resolve the problems with the new IT system. As our casework demonstrates, we encounter such problems almost daily. Although, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, there have been improvements, the system is still far from perfect.

The Government are keen for those who are still on the old scheme to benefit from the reforms as soon as possible. We want our constituents to move to the new system because it is better, simpler and fairer—and, as my hon. Friend says, at the end of the day it is the children whom we are trying to help.

There has rightly been much discussion in the House and elsewhere about the future of the Scottish regiments, but the Government must be aware of the great concern in Northern Ireland about the future of the home battalions of The Royal Irish Regiment, which has given valiant and courageous service for many years in difficult and challenging circumstances. Will the Deputy Leader of the House commit himself to an early debate on this important issue in Government time?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence takes the issue extremely seriously. We shall have a number of opportunities for defence debates during the coming Session, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to contribute.

When will the long-awaited public health white paper eventually be published, and when can we debate it? I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of yesterday's decision by the Scottish Executive to ban smoking in all enclosed public places, which I warmly welcome. The all-party group on smoking and health has visited Ireland and seen the success of the policy there, and Wales voted for a ban two years ago. Will my hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to be bold and safeguard the health of all employees, wherever they may work—in offices, in restaurants or in bars?

They did warn me that controversy might arise. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no, but the Government are committed to publishing a white paper as soon as possible—any day now.

My hon. Friend has raised this issue persistently. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about her views on smoking in public places, and he is of course aware of the Scottish decision. The House will want to hear the views of the Welsh Assembly, and will await the White Paper's publication with interest.

Is the Leader of the House in New Zealand in his capacity as Leader of the House or in his capacity as Secretary of State for Wales? If it is the former, will he report to the House on whatever he has discovered? If it is the latter, will he try to plan his diary better in future so as not to miss Thursdays?

In fact, we get very good value for money from my right hon. Friend. He has visited Australia in his capacity as Secretary of State for Wales, where he championed the Welsh economy and inward investment. That followed a successful trip to China, as a direct result of which jobs have been brought to Wales. He is currently in New Zealand at the invitation of its Prime Minister, and is visiting the Parliament there. As a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge the desirability to the House of those links.

As for the timing, my right hon. Friend—as I said—asked me to pass on his apologies. This window of opportunity before the final week of the Session was convenient. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, my right hon. Friend has not missed business questions in two years.

If we vote down the Lords amendments to the Hunting Bill on Tuesday, what exactly will be the procedure for invoking the Parliament Act?

The procedure for invoking the Parliament Act is a matter for the House. I have announced the time that is available, and I am confident that there will be enough—although it takes only 30 seconds for my hon. Friend to say no, which I suspect will be his response. I can confirm that there will be a free vote for all members of the parliamentary Labour party, in line with our manifesto commitment.

The point about the Parliament Act—this is of course something of which you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker—is that its invocation is a process rather than a decision. We should see Tuesday's debate in that light.

We have just learned from a No. 10 briefing that the Prime Minister has no intention of raising the redeployment of The Black Watch when he meets President Bush later today. Does the Deputy Leader of the House not find that extraordinary, given that the Black Watch have provided the president with international cover and credibility during the past few weeks? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could gently suggest that it might be in the Prime Minister's interests to raise the issue—and, most important, seek a reassurance that no further such deployments will take place.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Prime Minister cannot involve the detail of military decisions in conversations of this nature. It would be wholly wrong of him to play politics with our armed forces, which is effectively what he would be doing.

I prefer to listen to members of the Black Watch who are currently in Iraq. They have made clear in media interviews that they would prefer politicians of all political colours not to hamper them in their work by commenting on their involvement. They would rather we gave them our backing, and did all that we can to support them. To play political football with the Black Watch, as I think the hon. Gentleman is—

No.

There is an honest disagreement here. I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

At the risk of putting my hon. Friend off, may I congratulate him on the lucidity and well informed character of what he has been saying today?

My hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor of the exchequer has recently mentioned several times outside the House the importance of the money that he has designated for science, and how vital science is to the Government's strategy. He will also know that the Chancellor has not actually made a statement in the House to that effect. I am particularly concerned, because the Science and Technology Committee has said that it is vital that effective investment be made in engineering and science in terms of the capacity of developing countries, and many of us want to query the Chancellor's intentions in this regard. Will my hon. Friend direct the Chancellor to come to the House to deal with this very important issue?

I feared that my hon. Friend was going to ask me about political philosophy but he has shifted to engineering and science, a very wise move. I expect the pre-Budget report and the spring Budget to continue what is a very strong track record on science investment. There is all-party agreement on science's importance to this country, but not on the provision of money for it. For example, as I discovered in preparation for today, one consequence of following the advice of the leader of the Liberal Democrats—his policy is to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry—would be the abolition of £2.4 billion-worth of investment in science; not a popular policy, I would have thought, in his Constituency.

Before the excellent Minister for Work, Jane Kennedy, makes her decision on the implementation of the temporary working at height directive, will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate so the House can influence her to exempt those who are already qualified to make judgments about safety in the outdoor adventure industry, thus avoiding the embarrassment of UK mountaineering safety standards being accepted by climbers throughout the world as the gold standard while, seemingly, the only people not sharing that view being the Health and Safety Executive and, potentially, the British Government?

The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue before in an Adjournment Debate, and I wrote to the Minister responsible for such matters outlining his views. I shall not comment on the details of the temporary working at height directive because I do not know what they are.

My hon. Friend will recall that on 3 November, he responded to the debate on Members' allowances, and that I and other Members expressed concern—as column 332 of the Official Report shows—about the impact of changes to Members' pension provision. Has he had an opportunity, in the light of our comments, to give further consideration to that matter, and can he now give a more adequate response than we got last week?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, because it enables me to put on record in Hansard the answer that I would have given in the debate, had time been available. He and others have very properly raised this issue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and with the chairman of the trustees, Sir John Butterfill, and I, too, have discussed the matter with the chairman. The trustees and my right hon. Friend are consulting the Government Actuary on a formula that will of course include the preservation of early retirement benefits for those who have not reached 65 by 2009, but who are already 60 and meet current early retirement criteria. On the other side of the coin, my hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that there will be no detrimental loss if a Member goes beyond the age of 65 in those circumstances. I hope that that is the answer he is looking for, and the chairman of the trustees assures me that we can deal with this issue.

Will the Deputy Leader of the House make time as soon as possible for a debate on the Paris declaration that was issued after an international conference of jurists on 10 November? We need to consider the legal opinion, expressed by the right hon. Lord Slynn of Hadley and others, concerning the need to recognise the status of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran as a legitimate resistance movement on the basis of international law. Will he also provide the House with an opportunity to distance Her Majesty's Government from the sordid and shameful deal that the European Union proposes to do with the Iranian regime? The Paris declaration states that the following be taken into consideration:

"The deal proposed by the European Union to the Iranian regime that if Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities, 'we would cooperate in the prevention and suppression of terrorist acts in accordance with respective legislation and regulations. We would continue to regard" the Iranian resistance group

"as a terrorist organisation'."

That is shoddy, and the Deputy Leader of the House should arrange for such a debate, so that we can consider removing from the PMOI the terror tag that legitimises the persecution of innocent members of that country's Opposition by the Iranian regime.

I am of course aware of the strength of feeling on this issue, which has been raised by other Members, and of the petition and campaign to secure the recognition that the hon. Gentleman seeks. He will understand that there is currently no time for such a debate, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of the point that he makes. He will doubtless join the Foreign Secretary in agreeing with the objective of British Government policy, which is to ensure nuclear non-proliferation in Iran.

May we have a debate on child care so that we can consider the costed policies necessary to help hard-working families, and perhaps pick apart some of the uncosted con tricks that we read about in this morning's papers?

I was amazed to read this morning that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is now contemplating more than £5 billion-worth of extra public expenditure. That follows Tuesday's off-the-top-of-his-head press statement, in which we discovered that he is contemplating more than £6 billion-worth of tax cuts. He cannot have his cake and eat it.

The hon. Gentleman will know that when the Prime Minister was pressed on the Black Watch during yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, he tried to distance himself and Ministers from the decision taken by saying that these were matters for the army. Perhaps we could have an early debate on ministerial responsibility, so that we can point out that ultimately, such decisions are made not by soldiers but by Ministers, just as it was Ministers and not soldiers who took us to war in Iraq.

I acknowledge the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes. I heard what the Prime Minister said, and I realised that such questions would then arise. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened carefully to the Prime Minister, he would know that he said that this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence at the end of the process. [Interruption.] He has said that. The point that the Prime Minister rightly made was that decisions on the future of regiments are not taken in isolation from advice from the army. I hope that that reassures the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Considering that we may have some long and complex debates and votes in the House next week, will the Deputy Leader of the House seize the moment and minimise the possibility of any Member succumbing to the temptation to use performance-enhancing substances by introducing a system of random but compulsory drug testing of Members following the vote?

I am pretty certain that the public health white paper will not cover that issue, which is a matter for the House, not the Deputy Leader of the House.

In light of the Deputy prime minister's statement on Monday, is the Deputy Leader aware that, after the publication of the draft Regional Assemblies Bill in July, I sought through the usual channels the reconvening of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs; so far, without success. In view of the momentous issues still to be resolved, will the Deputy Leader reassure me that that Standing Committee will reconvene and that we will have adequate opportunity to explore the significant issues that now arise as a result of the referendum and the Deputy Prime Minister's statement?

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, which he and other hon. Members have made before. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will want seriously to consider that matter on his return, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the decision made by the Chancellor of the exchequer to return the value added tax on the new Live Aid single and forthcoming DVD. Will he use his good offices to promote the good work of this charity, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, when people can both buy good music and make a tangible contribution to enhancing the quality of life of people living in developing countries?

I am very happy to do so and I thank my hon. Friend for his question. All people welcomed the Chancellor's announcement, which it is estimated will add £4 million to the Live Aid effort. That is only an estimate; if the record sells more, even more money will be made for the cause. I hope that all hon. Members will join the Chancellor and my hon. Friend in promoting this very worthwhile campaign.

May I gently contradict the view of my hon. Friend Sir Patrick Cormack and say that it is a genuine pleasure to see the Deputy Leader at the Government Dispatch Box? I trust that it will not be too much longer before we see him much more often at the Opposition Dispatch Box.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman for a statement or debate on the issue of the answers given to parliamentary questions? That would enable me to raise the case of the invisible Chancellor; not the one performing in the Chamber a little while ago, whom the Prime Minister wishes were invisible, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has so far resisted all attempts to establish how he spends his time on Government duties and how much it costs the country to have him separated, as he has been, from the Minister responsible for the Cabinet Office. He is not, of course, completely invisible, because there are plenty of news stories about what he is doing to win the election for Labour, as he hopes. A statement on that matter would be very useful indeed.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be answering questions in this Chamber on Tuesday. The accusation that the hon. Gentleman has made, and continues to make, rather flies in the face of the fact that the chairman of the Conservative party was a full member of the Cabinet throughout those 18 horrible years. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman standing up and complaining about that.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that Co-operative Financial Services, which includes the Co-operative Bank and the Co-operative Insurance Society, has been ranked No. 1 on sustainable reporting criteria for delivering UN environment programmes. I am sure that many hon. Members in their places today are very proud of that achievement. Bearing that in mind, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of having an urgent and early debate—if the next Session, if not this one—on the Government's attitude towards corporate social responsibility, in order properly to highlight the importance of this successful sector? We could then show that the Government do encourage good endeavours such as the Co-op and want more of them.

I am more than happy to congratulate Co-operative Financial Services on being ranked No. 1 in the world for its sustainability reporting relating to the UN environment programme. Some 2,000 sustainability reports are now produced worldwide and it is increasingly becoming a mainstream practice. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work as chairman of the all-party group in promoting corporate responsibility and sustainability, and I congratulate him and the CFS again, especially in view of the part of the country that I represent.

May I remind the Deputy Leader that he has cited the pressure of business as a reason for not debating important subjects, yet the Government have left a half-day today completely empty and unused? That time could have been used to debate some of those subjects. Will he consider having a debate on the entirely unacceptable and illegal practice by many international criminal gangs of using automated dialling equipment to run up substantial premium-rate phone calls on behalf of innocent people in the United Kingdom? That activity is utterly unacceptable: it must be stopped, and the House needs to deal with it quickly.

The hon. Gentleman made two points. On the allocation of time, I am sorry that he thinks that this afternoon's business is a waste of time. It is, of course, an Opposition motion and the debate was granted in response to requests made by Opposition Front Benchers. Once again, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is magnanimous and acts on behalf of the whole House, Conservative Members rather churlishly have a pop at him, rather than thank him.

On the second issue, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The problem is significant and is perhaps not acknowledged enough by commentators in the public debate. On Monday there is the opportunity to put questions to the Home Office, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, which has also been made by other hon. Members.

My hon. Friend will appreciate the significance of the Prime Minister's visit to President Bush in clarifying a number of different aspects of the special relationship, not least the question of the American attitude to climate change in the next four years. Given the Prime Minister's stated priority of dealing with climate change as part of the G8 and EU presidencies, I endorse the need for the Prime Minister to make a statement when he returns from Washington next week. Is it not time that the Government, who are reviewing their climate change strategy, found time for a debate on climate change itself? If I recall correctly, our only opportunity to debate the subject in the last few months was an Opposition day debate on a Tory motion, which was subsequently withdrawn. Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on climate change in the very near future?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There have been calls for a debate on this subject and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware of them. On the matter of the Prime Minister making a statement, I can do no more than refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to Mr. Tyler. Climate change is one of the issues being raised with the American presidency and we need to campaign at all levels within the US about it. Our problem on this issue is not only the President, but the Senate.

On this Remembrance day, will the Deputy Leader ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come to the House to deal with a charity legislation problem that is affecting our ability to raise funds for the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland? I declare a past interest, having been an adviser to the British Legion on VE-day and VJ-day remembrance. We created an instant poppy card that brings in revenue of millions of pounds, in addition to the traditional form of fund-raising for the British Legion. It is very difficult nowadays. We saw in the press recently that in some of our major British cities there are no people fundraising on the days before Remembrance Sunday.

Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where the charities law does not allow the £1 instant poppy card to be sold, yet Northern Ireland is an excellent source of fundraising for the British Legion and the fine cause it represents. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to deal with that anomaly and ensure that charities legislation allows modern forms of marketing and fundraising, such as the use of the instant poppy card, to be used in Northern Ireland? That would help raise the income going to the Royal British Legion.

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. I shall be more than happy to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is made aware of it. The problem that he identifies seems wrong, and it should be put right. I am sure that the whole House supports the British Legion. May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House that there will be a fantastic display for Remembrance day at 6 pm this afternoon? It has been organised by the British Legion, and involves a fly-past of this House by Lancaster bombers.

Eighty-six years and two hours or so ago, the guns at last fell silent on the battlefields of Europe, after an intense and bloody conflict without precedent or parallel. Has my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1887, tabled by my hon. Friend Keith Vaz, and signed by me and other hon. Members? It states:

That this House notes with horror that the historic site where part of the Battle of Loos was fought in 1915 is being turned into a rubbish tip; further notes that the village of Auchy les Mines, in northern France, was the site of one of the most intense, bloody battles of the war and that up to 60,000 British soldiers died, including more than 500 from the Royal Leicestershire Regiment; and calls on the Foreign Secretary to meet the French Foreign Minister with a view to saving the battlefield from destruction and helping to preserve it as a place of historic interest.

It draws attention to the 1915 battle of Loos, and in particular to the intense fighting that took place around the village of Auchy les Mines in northern France. Many hundreds of soldiers from Leicestershire died in that conflict, including a large number from my Constituency. That battlefield is now threatened with being turned into a rubbish tip. Will my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to approach his French counterparts to see what can be done to protect the area? More generally, will he ask the Secretary of State for Defence to find time to summarise the threats that may exist to similar areas in northern France and the rest of Europe, so that we can give appropriate protection and honour to the areas where a million of our countrymen died?

I am aware of that early-day motion, and it is right and proper for a Leicestershire Member to raise this matter. I think that I am right in saying that 500 members of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment were killed in that battle. I have seen the press reports about the problem with battlefield sites. I can confirm that the Government are very aware of this matter. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence maintain a close interest in the question of war graves and of battlefield sites. Although the UK cannot decide what another sovereign state may do with its own land, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is in contact with the French authorities on this matter.

This is the final question today, so may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House on his fabulous performance? We hope to see him at the Dispatch Box on many more occasions in the future.

The specific point that I want to raise is that 13 per cent. of drivers in this country drive without any form of insurance. Unfortunately, many of them cause accidents, and the innocent drivers of the other cars involved in those accidents face two problems. They have to deal with the accident itself, and are then left significantly out of pocket by the increased premiums that they have to pay. Is not it time that the tax disc system was reformed to make sure that more cars are insured? Will the Govt allow a debate on this matter, or, more importantly, make provision in the Queen's Speech for changes in the law?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said early in his remarks. I thought that there would be a "but", and was very pleased that there was not.

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters and has raised this question before. He is right to say that incidents involving uninsured drivers cause great injustice to other drivers. Press reports about last week's tragic rail crash suggest that people with motor insurance policies may have to pick up the compensation bill. My hon. Friend's point is therefore very important and timely. I remind the House that Transport questions take place on Tuesday next week, and I shall ensure that the relevant Minister is aware of my hon. Friend' s comments.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Perhaps inadvertently, the Deputy Leader of the House suggested that Conservative party chairmen in the 1980s were paid by the taxpayer. I should like to put on record that that was never the case. On the few occasions when the party chairman was also Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he drew a much-reduced salary to reflect the small number of duties involved in the Duchy. For example, Norman Tebbit drew only £2,000 a year. Is it in order for the Deputy Leader of the House to make such remarks? Is it in order for the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to refuse to say what he is doing with taxpayers' money?

As a former trade union officer, I would never advise anyone to take a reduced salary.