As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Shadow Leader of the House is not well. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to the House for his absence today. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in sending him our good wishes for a speedy recovery.

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

Yes, of course, but before I do so, I am happy to join in wishing the Shadow Leader a full and speedy recovery so that I can get to grips with him at business questions next week.

Mr. Speaker, you informed the House on Tuesday of the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech. The business for next week will therefore be:

Monday 29 November—Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Tuesday 30 November—Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Wednesday 1 December—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Thursday 2 December—A debate on "fisheries" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.I also remind the House that on this day my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the exchequer will present his pre-Budget report. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government also intends to make a statement to the House on the 2005–06 provisional local government finance settlement for England.

Friday 3 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 6 December—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.

Tuesday 7 December—Second Reading of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.

Wednesday 8 December—Second Reading of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill.

Thursday 9 December—Estimates [1st Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.

Friday 10 December—The House will not be sitting.

I should like to inform the House the business in Westminster Hall will be:

Thursday 2 December—A debate on the Caribbean: supporting development.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business that he has just announced. Will he join me in expressing concern at events in Ukraine? I am sure that I am speaking for the whole House when I say that we all hope that democracy can prevail in Ukraine and that the situation does not deteriorate into civil war.

Last week there was a public outcry at the racism witnessed in Spain, and rightly so. We have heard Ministers condemn the racism and there have even been calls for the withdrawal of Spain's nomination to host the Olympics in 2012. Why, then, is it all right for an English cricket team to visit a country where racism, ethnic cleansing, murder, rape and starvation are the norm? Will the Leader of the House use his considerable influence to ensure that everyone in Government and the international community ostracises Zimbabwe until the evil Mugabe regime is no more?

The only piece of Foreign Office legislation in the Queen's Speech was not referred to in yesterday's debate. It was left to the Shadow Minister for Europe to do so. May we have a full debate in Government time on foreign affairs?

The Leader of the House's outrageous remarks the other day about a safer Britain were condemned by colleagues and commentators on all sides, with the distinguished Labour lawyer Baroness Kennedy describing them as

"an opportunistic bid to feed public fear."

But I am a generous chap, Mr. Speaker. Let us take the Leader's words at face value. Will he tell us when we will see the legislation to which he must have been referring in his "safer Britain" comments? With one teacher being assaulted every seven minutes, when will we see a Bill to restore school discipline and to make our schools safer? With a gun crime being committed every hour and more than 1 million violent crimes last year, when will we see a Bill to put more police, with full police powers, on to the streets? In the Leader's safer Britain, 5,000 people die each year from infections that they pick up in hospitals. When will the Government introduce legislation to give us cleaner hospitals and to make them safe?

The Government want to control our families, our leisure time and what we eat, but they cannot control our borders. When will see action or legislation on the 250,000 illegal asylum seekers who have no right to be here and whom the Government have done nothing to deport? After 66 tax rises, with each household in the country paying £5,000 more in tax, what is there in the Queen's Speech to give hard-working families and taxpayers safety from more tax rises by the Chancellor of the exchequer? The British people want better value for money for the huge amounts of taxes that they pay each year. The Government's programme is taking us in the wrong direction. That is why the country wants lower taxes.

Mr. Speaker, that was a rather better response to the Queen's Speech than the one given by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week. Perhaps David Maclean and he should switch jobs.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a question about Ukraine, and I am pleased to agree with him. We strongly support the EU declaration criticising the conduct of Ukraine's presidential election. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has stated clearly that the elections did not meet a considerable number of OSCE commitments, as well as Council of Europe and other European standards for elections. That is a matter for concern.

I agree that the behaviour of the Spanish fans who chanted racist slogans at the England team was outrageous. I agree also that the situation under Mugabe's tyrannical rule in Zimbabwe is outrageous and unacceptable. I have attacked it consistently, as have the Government.

I have made it perfectly clear that we are opposed to the cricket tour of Zimbabwe, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said the same earlier today. We wish that the tour had not happened, but the England and Wales Cricket Board is not a Government Department and is free to make its own decisions. I understand that the Zimbabwe information Minister has now lifted the ban on the remaining British journalists. Obviously, that is welcome, but it is still the case that the tour will give comfort to Mugabe's murderous rule, and I do not believe that the England team should be going.

As to the debate on the Foreign Office, there will be a debate on Europe immediately preceding the European Council in a couple of weeks' time. As is normal, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the following Monday on his return from the European Council.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Foreign Office matters. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is punctilious—almost more so than any other Cabinet Minister—about coming to the House and making statements when issues develop. I think that I am right in saying that Iraq and other Foreign Office matters have been debated in this House more regularly in the past year or two than almost any other foreign policy that I can recall.

On the question of a safer Britain, I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservatives protest just a bit too much, and that all this phoney fury is a smokescreen to hide the fact that they have no plan of their own for the building of a safer Britain. Of course we believe that our policies and investment plans are making Britain safer, just as we believe in investment in the police, which the Tories pledged to cut. We also believe in a policy such as identity cards, which the Tories and the Liberal Democrats both oppose. Their approach is not acceptable.

I believe that Britain will be safer under Labour, just as I believe that it will be more prosperous, with more opportunities, jobs, hospitals and schools. It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to say what he did, given that he was a Home Office Minister for four years when crime rocketed and the number of police officers was cut. Crime rose faster under the Tories than it did in any other major western country. There was a staggering 166 per cent. increase in the total of recorded violent crimes, whereas the number of criminals brought to book fell by a third.

The Tory record is a shabby one, but Labour is creating a much safer and more secure Britain. We are pushing through policies on antisocial behaviour and criminal justice reform—as well as anti-terrorism legislation—against which the Liberal Democrats and many Tories have consistently voted. The electorate will judge their record for what it is; disgraceful. Their policies would have made Britain less, rather than more, secure.

On asylum, I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Home Office Minister, has the temerity to raise this matter. He knows that when we came to power we inherited an absolute shambles in a system that tries to cope with illegal human trafficking and illegal migration—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must let the Leader of the House speak.

On taxation, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have cut taxes for hard-working families and reduced to 10p the rate of tax paid by the lowest earners. We have also introduced working tax credits and child tax credits that have made work pay. Under the Tories—before there was a minimum wage and before there were tax cuts—it was more sensible for many families and individuals to stay on benefit. This Government have made opportunities available to people by rewarding work, and by encouraging them through tax credits and the minimum wage. We have ensured that work pays, and the right hon. Gentleman's charge against the Government is therefore entirely false.

My right hon. Friend will recall that the 2001 Labour party manifesto contained a promise to review electoral systems. When does he expect to make an announcement about that review?

There was such a review. [Interruption.] I agree with my hon. Friend Mr. Skinner; I do not support proportional representation and have never done so. I have always favoured electoral reform to introduce the alternative vote, but that is my personal preference and not Government policy. We did have a manifesto commitment and we are committed to a review, and that will be conducted.

I remind the Leader of the House that he has an obligation to be fair to both sides of the House. He should perhaps turn over a new leaf to go with the new Session and remind himself that excessively partisan media statements are the province of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has been specially appointed for that purpose. Will the Leader of the House now convene the round table meeting to discuss the timetable for this year's legislative programme, as recommended by the Modernisation Committee and approved by the House? Does he accept that, given the likely length of this Session, there might be some strong reasons to see how far we can agree on the management of the Government's proposed business?

Will the Leader of the House arrange for motion No. 24, printed in the Remaining Orders and Notices today, on British troops in Iraq—it has been signed by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—to be debated in the House in the near future?

I note what the Leader of the House said about the police and local government settlement. Will he confirm that separate statements will be made and that separate opportunities to vote will be allowed on those two very important matters, which raise different and significant issues in many parts of England and Wales?

It is interesting that no sooner have I said that we will have a safer and more secure Britain, both Shadow spokesmen get ill. I hope that that is not a consequence of my public statements.

On the issue of a legislative programme being planned by a round table, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government always intend to do such things by consensus. We introduce Bills and decide on timetabling by agreement through the usual channels, so I do not see any need for a round table of the sort he proposed.

I will certainly look into the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I wish to take this opportunity to wish the Liberal Democrat spokesman a speedy return to health. I hope that he will be back next week.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 99?

[That this House congratulates Macmillan Cancer Relief on the successful launch of its exciting new Better Deal campaign to get a better deal for people dealing with cancer, especially from the benefits system; notes that three quarters of people surveyed by Macmillan who have had a cancer diagnosis say they suffered financially as a result; further notes that, for some people affected by cancer, money worries are second only to pain as a cause of stress; welcomes Macmillan's resolve to champion these issues and campaign with people struggling to meet the unexpected extra costs resulting from the debilitating effects of treatment, including travel to hospital, hospital car parking and higher heating Bills; supports Macmillan's call for the Government to ensure that every cancer patient is offered specialist benefits and advice at diagnosis and to change the law to improve cancer patients' access to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA); and calls on the Government to stop cancer spreading to people's finances and to act urgently to ensure that the DLA and AA schemes are fast, fit for purpose and fair for people dealing with cancer.]

The motion addresses not only the health effects of cancer but the serious financial problems—financial desperation in some cases—experienced as a consequence. Will he consider making time for a debate on the issue?

I understand the importance of the points that my hon. Friend raises and I will study the early-day motion carefully. As he knows, we have prioritised treatment for cancer and reduced waiting times, as a result of which people suffering from cancer have received a better deal under Labour.

Three weeks ago, the Leader of the House promised legislation that would deal with the mess in Parliament square. Indeed, you referred to that on the day of the State Opening, Mr. Speaker. When might we expect that legislation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill has been introduced and will be debated before Christmas. He will have the chance to make his views clear on that legislation, which will deal with the problem.

Has the British Government raised with the European Commission the Spanish Commissioner's meeting with Hamas, which is labelled as a terrorist organisation even by the EU itself?

My hon. Friend may have heard the Foreign Secretary say on the radio this morning that he had not yet had a chance to speak to Mr. Solana about the issue. As she knows, Javier Solana is a highly respected international negotiator who has gained much credibility for seeking to bring peace to the middle east, as well as for his other work, notably in the Balkans. She will be aware also that Britain has proscribed the military wing of Hamas and that the EU has listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Javier Solana obviously will do all he can to try to promote peace in the middle east and we want to work with him on that. On the radio this morning, he was quoted as saying that he had talked to Hamas and been in contact with people who have been with Hamas. Obviously, we need to get the details directly from him.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in the Chamber as soon as possible on the funding of education and library boards in Northern Ireland, all of which face serious financial difficulties? The Western education and library board predicts a shortfall of £23 million over the next three years. The Southern education and library board, based in Armagh, estimates a £28 million shortfall over the next three years. The Belfast and South Eastern boards are already the subject of a special inquiry into their overspending—more than £5 million each in the last financial year—and, to stay within budget, the North Eastern board has cancelled everything except emergency maintenance. That is happening despite the fact that £50 million of the Northern Ireland Department of Education budget was underspent last year and that a further underspend is predicted for the current financial year.

Obviously, I am not aware of the details of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want to take careful note of what he said.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of the debate on the fishing industry next Thursday. I am conscious that that will probably be a busy day, so will he assure the House, especially Members who represent fishing communities, that we will have sufficient time to give full consideration to important matters that currently affect many coastal communities? If necessary, will he consider moving a business motion to ensure that we have enough time for contributions from not only Front-Bench speakers, but Members representing coastal communities?

I am aware that the matter is of extreme concern to my hon. Friend. Fisheries policy is extremely important, not least for the many Members of Parliament who represent coastal areas. My hon. Friend will be aware that I have tabled a business motion, which will mean that the debate will be protected; there will be a full three-hour debate. I take this opportunity to say to Front-Bench spokesmen and women on both sides of the House that the shorter their contributions the better, to allow lots of Members to participate in the debate.

I know that the Leader of the House is concerned about truth and accuracy, so I am surprised at his earlier comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was the only Home Secretary under whom overall crime actually reduced.

My question follows that of Lawrie Quinn, who referred to fishing. Why will the debate on fishing be on the Adjournment and not a general motion on which the House could vote? Fishing is a controversial issue and there are major differences between the parties over the future of UK fishing rights and UK fishing waters.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a convention that the debate to which he refers is on a motion for the Adjournment. He may try to persuade the House that it should not be so but, under successive Governments, that has been the case.

On crime, the fact is that it is down by a third under Labour but doubled under the Conservatives, especially at the time when the Leader of the Opposition was a Minister in the last Conservative Government. The chance of being a victim of crime is at its lowest for 20 years. Since 1997, burglary is down by 42 per cent., vehicle theft by 40 per cent. and violent crime by 26 per cent., and £1 million of the profits from organised crime are being seized every week. The Conservatives ought to be supporting Labour policies to make Britain even safer and more secure, and it is a measure of the extreme position that they have got themselves into that they are attacking Government policies to tackle terrorism, organised and serious crime, antisocial behaviour, drugs trafficking and illegal migration. They should be backing Labour's excellent policies to build a safer and more secure Britain.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that public expenditure in Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and Wales is much higher than it is in regions such as the north-west. Will he arrange for a debate in the House to allow us to discuss how we can have more equal funding of public services?

As my hon. Friend knows, the local government settlement will enable that debate to take place, and local authorities will see the resources they are getting. But I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about the Barnett formula and the way that it distributes resources. If I may talk about Wales, wearing my other Cabinet hat, although spending per head is higher in Wales than the average in England, rates of disability, industrial illness and ill-health are higher in Wales as well, and poverty has in the past decades been greater. The Barnett formula is designed to address that issue. In the end, Wales gets the same proportion of increases in spending as England; it is done on a per capita basis. That is the basis of the formula.

During the year, more than 20 million visitors visit the Peak district, which is maintained and looked after by our farmers, who look after and maintain our countryside. When can we have debate on agriculture in the House? The dairy industry is in severe crisis.

I think that I am right in saying that the Peak district national park was created by a Labour Government, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would welcome. I will obviously bear in mind his request for a debate on the dairy industry and agriculture, but we have a busy legislative Session coming up.

As yet another strategically important science department is faced with closure—this time chemistry at Exeter—will my right hon. Friend review the arrangements by which we discuss science matters in the House? This matter arose because of an absurd ratio in terms of funding for science courses organised by the Higher Education Funding Council, which lowered the amount of funding available to science departments. That is just the sort of issue that should be tackled on the Floor of the House. Yet the Minister for Science and Innovation is in the other place, has the most junior Ministry of all and is unpaid, while the Minister with responsibility for culture is a Cabinet Minister. Is not this appalling, and should we not be doing something about it?

Obviously I do not want to see a chemistry course cut anywhere in Britain. We had the same problem at Swansea university, near my Constituency, recently, which is why the Government are investing record amounts in science. We have trebled the science budget; an extra £1 billion is now coming in. Obviously, Exeter university is an independent, autonomous body and these decisions are being considered. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills are aware of this matter and I am sure will now be even more aware as a result of my hon. Friend's question.

The worrying situation in Ukraine is fast-moving and there are grave warnings about civil order. When will the Foreign Secretary make an urgent statement to the House, so that we can be fully apprised of developments and the Government's position, which will have to respond to events on the ground?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I agreed with the Conservative spokesperson on the worrying situation, and I agree with him also. The Foreign Secretary is in the middle east, seeking actively to promote the peace settlement that we all want to see between the Israelis and the Palestinians. My right hon. Friend is also involved in the issue of Iran and other sensitive issues, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not want to be critical of him. But I am sure the Foreign Secretary will bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that safety and security is not just about terrorism and major crime, important though they are, but about the safety, security, liveability and cleanliness that people observe in their immediate neighbourhood; the well-being of their daily lives? In that context, will he ensure that the Bill on clean neighbourhoods and environment that was announced in the Queen's Speech gets the earliest possible debate before the House?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I will indeed seek to ensure that that occurs. The Bill will build on the antisocial behaviour legislation that this Government have also introduced, which was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. First, they said that the legislation was draconian. Then, they claimed that it did not work. Now, they say that they support it. Next, they will be saying that it was their idea all along.

The truth is that many in our local neighbourhoods, as we know as Members of Parliament, are very concerned about yobbery, fly-posting, fly-tipping, graffiti, noise pollution, abandoned vehicles and different ailments. I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives ought to back the Government in trying to create safer, more secure local communities. That is precisely the point that I have been making the past few days—I am pleased to have done so—and I will continue making that argument, despite these phoney attacks from the Opposition.

Because of the Government's refusal to fund health care properly in Surrey, the Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals trust is facing financial meltdown. If it were a business in the private sector, it would now be facing bankruptcy, and its long-suffering and hard-working board is meeting today to try to sort out the mess that the Government have created in my Constituency. Might we have a debate so that we can get to the bottom of the crisis, which is almost certain to lead to service cuts for my constituents and longer waiting lists for those who need treatment?

Obviously I am not aware of the details of the hon. Gentleman's local hospital. He quite properly raises the matter, but I would take issue with him about the Government's failure to fund health services properly. That is an incredible statement from a Conservative Member, when we had cut after cut in health care under the Tories. We have brought in 77,500 more nurses, 19,000 more doctors, 24 major new hospitals, 16,000 more general and acute beds in the past three years and 450,000 more operations a year. Waiting lists coming right down, compared with the situation under the Conservatives when waiting lists were sky high, hospitals were closing, nurses were losing their jobs and doctors could not be recruited; the dreadful legacy that we inherited.

The official Opposition spokesman, who did a very good job today, suggested that every family in the country pays an extra £5,000 a year in tax, but that would miss many families in my Constituency; that is almost half of their annual income. The hon. Gentleman cited value for money, so will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time on the use of Short money? Are we getting value for money when figures like that are being chucked about?

That is a very interesting question. Perhaps the public and the House might take the view that the millions of pounds—I think that it is more than £3 million—that the Conservative parliamentary Opposition get in Short money is not being well spent. As such a poor, extreme and pathetic Opposition are being subsidised by taxpayers, those taxpayers might want to consider whether they are getting value for money from the Tory party.

Returning to serious matters and to the quite dreadful situation in Zimbabwe, notwithstanding the fact that British cricket correspondents will now be allowed into that country, might I tell the Leader of the House that the overwhelming Majority of people will share his view that the English cricket team should not be there? Might I also put it to him that it is a pity that his robust line has not been taken up by the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers? As the situation will unfold in a very difficult way during the next week or two while the team is there, may we at least have a guarantee from the Leader of the House that Foreign Office Ministers will be on hand constantly to come to the Dispatch Box to make appropriate statements as and when necessary?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are at one on this matter, and I pay tribute to the way in which he has constantly drawn the House's attention to the abuses of freedom and the oppression in Zimbabwe. I will certainly bear in mind his point about Foreign Office Ministers, and I am sure that they will want to report to the House if there is any major development.

One of the things that I find most despicable, on top of the pile of horrendous acts for which Mugabe is responsible, is that he is now apparently banning food aid from the United Nations World Food Programme because he says that starvation is not happening and that people have enough food, when everyone knows that the people are destitute in Zimbabwe and that starvation is on the increase in a country that was able to feed not just itself aplenty, but the rest of southern Africa. He is responsible for a record of really awful rule.

May I urge the Leader of the House to make time available soon for a debate on the important subject of public service broadcasting and, in particular, the threat to public service broadcasting in our regions? He may be aware that ofcom is consulting on a proposal to cut by half non-news regional output—the requirement to do non-news programming in the regions—from three hours to one and a half. That will remove some distinct and popular programmes from the schedules and, for me, it would be a personal tragedy if "Granada Soccer Night" disappeared. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to urge Ofcom to come to the House to explain its proposals to Members? The issue is of genuinely high importance to our regions and their economic prosperity.

My hon. Friend makes his point very well and convincingly. I am aware, as I know the Secretary of State is, of the problems of regional programming, which is now being questioned by ofcom's consideration. I know this from Wales where ITV Wales faces cuts in programming, and this is not acceptable. We want a high quality alternative to the BBC, we want variety, and we want ITV Wales to be available right across Wales. Indeed, we want ITV UK to provide proper regional programming, especially in news and current affairs.

May I reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend David Maclean, the passing Shadow Leader of the House? In the light of what happened yesterday, there really is a need for a debate on foreign affairs. Although I perfectly understand that the Foreign Secretary could not be here because he was conducting important business in Egypt and Israel, the fact is that the two ministerial contributions at the beginning and end of the debate did not, for example, deal with the European Union constitution referendum Bill, which is the flagship of the Government's programme for this Session. Will the Leader of the House consider whether such a debate could be granted before Christmas?

As I understand it, in that debate the Minister dealt with the European Union constitution referendum Bill, which appeared in the Queen's Speech and will come forward in due course. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has asked to make an early statement on his visit to the middle east, and that will provide an opportunity for a range of issues to be raised. I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.

Last week, the Prison Service ombudsman published a report in which he blamed ill-thought-through policies, the setting of unachievable targets and the design and construction of buildings unfit for purpose as the reasons behind the fire and serious incident at Yarl's Wood removal centre in February 2002, which cost £100 million and endangered scores of lives. As the Home Secretary did not consider it necessary to come to the House to make an oral statement about these accusations, could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate so that the Home Secretary has a chance to come to the Dispatch Box and explain which part of this policy fiasco has contributed most to a safer Britain?

The hon. Gentleman has quite properly raised this matter, which affects a prison in his Constituency. Obviously, consideration has been given to this important report and the Home Secretary will want to study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to join with Labour Members in welcoming the enormous expansion of the Home Office budget, which would be put at risk if the Conservatives were to be elected as there is a £1.5 billion cut in Home Office spending planned by the Conservatives in their first two years of office.

I believe in safer streets, safer villages, safer towns and safer cities, so can we have a full day's debate on policing in this country? I know that Lancashire constabulary is facing a £7 million shortfall this year and that violent crime in Lancashire rose last year by 47 per cent. Since 1997, we have seen the closure of, and reduced hours in, police stations in Lancashire, so I want the Home Secretary to tell us how many police officers will be taken away from chasing murderers, rapists, muggers and thugs and will now be chasing fox hunters after 19 February.

The situation affecting local police stations or resourcing has nothing to do with fox hunting, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. That question shows the obsession of Conservative Back Benchers with issues such as fox hunting, instead of concentrating on making Britain a much more secure and safe place in which to live. I hope that he and the Conservatives will back all the Government's legislation—measures on counter-terrorism and serious organised crime, the drugs Bill and the clean neighbourhoods Bill, which tackles antisocial behaviour. I also hope that they vote to support the identity cards Bill as well, because that will help to tackle terrorism, illegal migration, organised crime—

How?

Simply because when the police apprehend someone, they will know who that person is if he is carrying an identity card. That is the point—[Interruption.] I make the prediction, as I am being heckled by the Liberal Democrats—I encourage them to do more of it—that they will do a U-turn on identity cards, just as they did on antisocial behaviour, because they know that the measure is extremely popular across the country.

I draw the Leader of the House's attention to today's report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office on waiting times for treatment in hospital. Although I welcome the reduction in the past two years, since 1996 there has been an horrendous increase of 42 per cent. Some 3,235 people are on the waiting list for 18 months in Northern Ireland, compared with 552 in-patients on the waiting list in England for 12 months and more. Can we have a statement that allows us to understand why the list has not been reduced to the same ratio as the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am not familiar with the figures in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. However, he is aware, as he just made clear, that waiting lists in England are plummeting. In a year or two they will be down to just 18 weeks from the time of the initial contact with the GP. Northern Ireland can learn from England's policy on waiting lists, as can Wales. The benefit of devolution is that we can all learn from each other's best practice.

The Leader of the House made a remarkable, and some would say ludicrous, speech the other day, commenting on how secure Britain was under this Labour Government, thereby revealing a central plank of the election programme next year—but by their works shall we know them! Will he arrange for a statement, with details placed in the library, listing all the Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards who were on the wrong side in the cold war, were members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who voted against the prevention of terrorism Act and how many times they did that, and who took part in illegal activities such as disrupting rugby tours and digging up cricket pitches?

On the question of past records, surely the hon. Gentleman wants to keep quiet about that and pipe down, given the Conservatives' dreadful record on crime, which doubled as all manner of crime increased. He should support the new security measures to ensure that Britain is a safer and more secure place, as I believe it will be under Labour.

One of the things that we are doing, which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome, is doubling the capacity of Britain's security services over the next three years, with extra special branch anti-terrorism capabilities too. In total, we are investing more than £2 billion in new counter-terrorism measures and on developing new electronic border surveillance—all funding that would be put at risk by the Conservatives' reckless economic plans, extreme policies and planned cuts in Home Office spending of up to £1.5 billion in the first two years of a Conservative Government, as announced by the Shadow Chancellor.

May we have a debate on mobile phone masts following the ruling by the Court of Appeal that Government legislation does not allow inspectors to take account of health risks, even in siting a mast next to a primary school near Harrogate? I urge the Minister to consider the matter because it seems strange that we have one group of scientists telling us that it is dangerous for children to walk around using mobile phones, but legislation saying that it is safe to put a mobile phone transmitter, millions of times as powerful, next to a primary school.

I am sure that the Secretaries of State concerned will want to look closely at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

May we have a debate on house building targets in Essex, so that we can make it absolutely clear that the Government target for building in Castle Point is 4,000 more houses, which means consuming green belt, and that there is no infrastructure provision to meet the new demand for our roads, schools, doctors and dentists?

I do not think that the Government's policy is quite as the hon. Gentleman suggested. There is obviously a need to balance improved housing opportunities, for which there is a great demand, with sustainable development. I would have thought that he supported Labour's policies for more affordable housing and for investment in housing. If we win the next election, we intend to make that measure a major priority.

May we have a debate in Government time on special schools and the Government's policy of inclusion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since my debate in Westminster Hall, I have had letters from parents throughout the country who have disabled children and children with very special needs and are concerned that their life chances will be cut off if special schools close? Is he aware that only yesterday a group of parents from Clacton in Essex, led by Douglas Carswell, came to see me because they are worried about the closure of their schools? Can we have a review of the law in that area and will the Government have a real look at what is happening on the ground? Above all, can we have a moratorium on further special school closures until that has been carried out?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman quite properly makes. There is a difficult balance to be struck between enabling children with special needs to come into mainstream schooling, with all the advantages that that brings, as he knows, and providing special schools in the right quantity so that children in difficult situations can have the necessary specialist attention. I will certain draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the hon. Gentleman's point.

May we have a statement from Labour's principal election propagandist—I beg the House's pardon; I mean the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—on the effect of the coming into force on 1 January of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on accountability by the Cabinet Office? That would enable us to explore the strange fact that repeated questions to Cabinet Office Ministers about the cost, over and above the right hon. Gentleman's £137,000 a year salary, of setting up a separate Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are met with the answer that the figure will be published in the Department's annual report. It just so happens that that will be after the General Election. Under the Freedom of Information Act, can we expect the answer to that simple question a little earlier?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a one-man anti-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster band, and I think that he is being very unfair to Lancaster.

I know that the Government prefer spreading fear among people to letting them have fun, but I hope that the Leader of the House will look into his heart and share my concern that the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on small touring circuses could be very serious, as I have been prophesying for the last year. Yesterday, I received the news of the first such circus to close because it is unable to face the burdens imposed on it by the Act. I urge the Leader of the House to have an urgent debate on the Act. If not that, will he at least go back to his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and ask them to reconsider the legislation, which threatens to destroy the good, honest, professional fun provided by circuses, which were invented, just across the road, on the other side of Westminster bridge, 200 or 300 years ago?

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is aware of these matters, and the Select Committee has also made a number of points. On the other hand, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to oppose the extension of the licensing Laws that allows us to have much more civilised drinking hours, as in the rest of the European Union and elsewhere in the world.