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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 17 January—Second Reading of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 18 January—Second Reading of the Drugs Bill.

Wednesday 19 January—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government's failure to give value for taxpayers' money", followed by a debate entitled "Government's failure to understand the needs of farming and rural communities".

Thursday 20 January—A debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 21 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 24 January—Remaining stages of the Gambling Bill.

Tuesday 25 January—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 26 January—A debate on sitting hours and related motions followed by remaining stages of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill.

Thursday 27 January—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Friday 28 January—The House will not be sitting.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. He announced that the remaining stages of the Railways Bill will be taken on Thursday 27 January, but that will clash with the Committee sittings on the Road Safety Bill. Will he look again at that problem, which could cause considerable inconvenience for Members on both sides of the House who wish to attend both debates, including Ministers and Opposition spokesmen?

Has the Leader of the House made any progress in arranging a debate on foreign affairs so that we may discuss the situations in Africa and the middle east?

The Leader of the House has assured me that the Constitutional Reform Bill will have its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. That is an important principle because

"you cannot play about with the British Constitution in a Committee upstairs".

Those are not my words, but Herbert Morrison's. As far as I am aware, the Government have stuck to that principle, starting with consideration of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 and continuing through 16 other constitutional measures. Will the Leader of the House repeat his assurance that the whole of the Constitutional Reform Bill will have its Committee stage on the Floor of the House?

In the Chancellor's absence, may we have a statement from the Chief Secretary on the trade deficit, which for this year is now a whopping £53.2 billion? At one time Chancellors resigned over such news: now they leave the country.

May we have a debate about round-the-clock drinking? Police chiefs have attacked the plan, saying that it will cause a huge strain on resources. Is not there a danger that the staggered hours will mean more hours of staggering about by binge drinkers, who have become such a feature of our national evening culture? Is not that a major health issue and a major cause of crime, and should not it be a major concern for the Government?

Finally, may we have a statement from the Prime Minister on his U-turn about changes in the law on householders tackling burglars? The Prime Minister said that he would support reform; now he says that he does not. Is not it the case that, as the Chancellor once said:

"There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe"?

On the Railways Bill and the Road Safety Bill, there was a difficult business management issue, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As he fairly acknowledges, he and I were anxious to hold the sitting hours debate on a day when the maximum number of Members would be present—whichever way they voted—so it was desirable to hold it in the middle of the week, and that is what we did by putting it on Wednesday 26 January. I am sure that we can get round those related transport matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House in a practical fashion.

I continue to note the hon. Gentleman's very fair request for debates on Africa and the middle east, and the Foreign Secretary is aware of it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are at a stage in the business cycle where we are getting through many Second Readings and making progress—more rapid progress than some of our critics might have imagined. The legislative programme is in very good shape indeed. There has not yet been an opportunity to hold those debates, but I continue to keep the matter under review.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Constitutional Reform Bill is currently being discussed by the usual channels. The Government will of course ensure that any programme motion provides for the matters in the Bill—which, yes, I described on 9 December as "a major constitutional measure"—to be debated on the Floor of the House. That has always been our intention. However, it is not the intention to deal with every aspect of the Bill on the Floor of the House, and adequate time for scrutiny in Standing Committee will be allocated. There are precedents for that, and the hon. Gentleman cited some: the Greater London Authority Bill was one and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was another. The Constitutional Reform Bill has 111 clauses, and the major constitutional measures will, properly, be taken on the Floor of the House, but for some of the other measures in a Bill over which there has been exhaustive consultation, and which has been exhaustively debated in the House of Lords, I am sure that the House will see it as reasonable that the Government should adopt the approach that we have adopted—even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

On the question about the trade deficit, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not pointed to the fact that we now have the strongest economy in living memory, with unemployment at its lowest for 30 years, the lowest mortgage and inflation rates for 40 years and the longest and most sustained period of economic growth for 200 years, compared with Conservative policies, in government, of high interest rates, high inflation, two recessions and 3 million unemployed. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to keep quiet about the economy, as the Leader of the Opposition consistently does in his questions to the Prime Minister. The country knows that electing a Tory Government would place at risk the whole future of the economy, with rapidly increasing mortgages, cuts in public spending, rises in unemployment and rises in prices.

On binge drinking, the hon. Gentleman knows that, in the end, it is for local authorities to determine what the licensing hours should be for individual premises or what the policy should be in a particular locality, and we have provided for that. The problem is that we have binge drinking now, so clearly the existing system is not working. We are trying to ensure that people do not have to pour out of licensed premises at exactly the same time, tanked up because they are desperate to get extra alcohol into themselves; unfortunately, too many of them do and they then create law and order problems for the police.

What about the police?

The police have varied views on the scheme—not all of them oppose it, and many recognise that this is a sensible way to proceed. Why should the rights of the law-abiding Majority to drink sensibly be transgressed? Surely their rights and liberties should be protected, which happens elsewhere in the European Union. Why should the rights of people who come out of the theatre and want the chance to enjoy a pint or a glass of wine be infringed and limited by an arbitrary cut-off that is imposed because of an abuse that is practised by a minority, bearing in mind the fact that, in any case, local authorities will have the right to control the matter locally?

The hon. Gentleman asks about burglaries and reasonable force. As the Home Secretary said yesterday in a written ministerial statement—it has been repeated today—after an exhaustive review, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service, the two key bodies involved, agreed that the existing law allows plenty of scope for reasonable force to be exercised. Indeed, I am advised of cases in which householders have killed intruders, but have not been prosecuted because the existing law provides plenty of scope. Our message to householders is that they have the right to defend their homes and to use reasonable force, and that they are entitled to use reasonable force if they suffer a burglary of an aggressive character. We are putting that message forward and the existing legislation provides for that, as ACPO and the CPS have confirmed. There is thus no need to amend the legislation.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the Unison campaign to take hospital cleaning contracts back into the public sector, which has started partly, at least, because in the 20 years since the privatisation of cleaning, the number of hospital cleaners has halved. If it was up to me, I would renationalise the lot and take back everything that the Tories privatised, starting with the railways. However, this situation is crucial—it could be a matter of life and death. The introduction of the profit motive into hospital cleaning has been a complete failure, as it has in most areas. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?

The Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that cleaning is a serious problem in too many hospitals, and he is tackling the matter. The situation is a legacy of the Tories' disastrous privatisation of cleaning, when they failed to ensure adequate standards, which are now being pushed through by the Government's policies. My hon. Friend will understand that MRSA is a separate, though related, issue because that is to do with the mutation of disease, which is difficult to deal with. The Secretary of State is well aware that clean hospitals are a vital prerequisite for effective treatment.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House early next week to make a statement on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction? He will have noted that overnight the President's spokesperson at the White House said that the Iraq survey group will now officially stand down. The exercise has ended, which clearly demonstrates that the House was given a completely flawed prospectus for going to war in Iraq. We now know that WMD stands for either weapons of mass distraction, or weapons of mass deception. We clearly need a statement from the Prime Minister as early as possible.

I think that the Leader of the House was in the Chamber a few minutes ago when hon. Members on both sides of the House were asking the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs important questions about the Kyoto protocol and climate change. Will he arrange for an early debate on the subject? We know from the Secretary of State's replies a few minutes ago, and from the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment's answers to my question about the severe weather conditions and climate change yesterday, that the Government are undertaking several initiatives in the near future—in February and, I think, in March—partly as a result of our current role as the lead country in the G8. Should not the House hear precisely what the Government have in mind to ensure that G8 countries live up to their expectations? Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been an important Lords report on this issue, to which I understand the Government have not yet responded, and a report from a Commons Select Committee on climate change and flooding, which asks for a white paper? The Government apparently responded that there was no need for such a White Paper.

Does the Leader of the House recognise that this is an extremely important issue for hon. Members throughout the House? If we do not take the opportunity of the G8 leadership to do something serious about it—notably to persuade the President of United States to take the matter seriously—the whole of the world will suffer.

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about climate change. The way in which our weather has been behaving recently gives the lie to claims that global warming does not produce climate change and that emissions are not at the root of that problem. We have made climate change a key priority for the G8 presidency and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government on that. It means that we are in the same position on this matter. I will bear in mind the need to debate the issue in the House. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to do so as the G8 presidency progresses.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the information that has just come to light from the Iraq survey group about its changed role is nothing new. He will also recall that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on 12 October; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for it. My right hon. Friend went into these issues in some detail. Both he and, before him, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that we accept the conclusions of the Iraq survey group about its failure to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the present time.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that on many occasions the Prime Minister and other Ministers, including him, said to Parliament or in media interviews that the reason we were going to war was not that we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein but the fact that he had weapons of mass destruction, that they could be used in 45 minutes and that they were a threat to the world. As Mr. Tyler has just said, America has announced the winding up of the Iraq survey group and admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction. May we have a debate in which apologies can be given? More important, I am sure that hon. Members will have noted that, although there have been resignations from the media for the coverage of the war, there has been no resignation from the Government—from the people responsible for the war—even though it has resulted in more than 100,000 deaths among Iraqi people and, indeed, our own soldiers.

These matters were exhaustively gone into when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made his statement on 12 October. He was questioned and exactly the points that my hon. Friend raises were made. My right hon. Friend robustly answered them, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly answered those questions in Prime Minister's questions over recent months.

We had an honest difference of opinion on the war—

You were wrong.

Well, no. My hon. Friend says that I was wrong.

You were.

Order. The hon. Gentleman gets only one bite of the cherry.

Does my hon. Friend believe that Saddam Hussein should still be in power? The real choice now is not what the original decision was and the merits of the basis of the original decision; the real choice is whether we should have a democratic Iraq, with elections at the end of this month, or terrorists destroying the prospect of democracy in Iraq. That is the choice before us now.

May we have a debate on the availability of information in books or chatrooms that could assist people to commit suicide? In Preston in September, a 19-year-old lady had a book called "Final Exit" and visited chatrooms and then, sadly, committed suicide. The Lancashire Evening Post is running a campaign entitled "Stop Pedlars of Death". May we have a debate on what can be done to close down the sources of the information that vulnerable young people are getting?

I shall certainly draw that case to the attention of the Ministers involved, as it is clearly alarming.

I have always believed that what matters most to my constituents is what happens outside their front door, on their streets and in their neighbourhoods, and how it affects their quality of life. I am worried, however, that we may have got it wrong, because the Liberal Democrats voted against the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and, on Monday, the Conservatives failed to support the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill—indeed, those who turned up for the debate spoke against it. May we have an urgent debate to review the Government's policies and establish whether Government or Opposition Members understand the public's priorities better?

I am inclined to have a re-run of the Second Reading of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, because there were only two Conservative speakers, compared with 18 Labour speakers. That demonstrates that the Conservatives are not interested in antisocial behaviour or clean neighbourhoods. They do not care about graffiti, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, noise pollution and other scourges of people's neighbourhoods. The Labour Government, however, are taking the matter forward, and we will continue to do so, even though we have to face up to the Opposition.

The House welcomed the fact that on Monday the Prime Minister came here to make a statement on the Indonesian earthquake. The Leader of the House will accept that many Members were unable to participate in that exchange, and that some important issues arose and need to be discussed. May we therefore have a debate in Government time next month on issues arising from the Indonesian earthquake?

I realise that this is an extremely important matter and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was a full chance to question the Prime Minister about it on Monday. It will be kept under constant review. For example, the figures for British casualties and other casualties are being adjusted almost daily as more accurate information becomes available. We will certainly bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request.

May we have a debate on the need for a further Thames river crossing to the east, outside the borough of Thurrock, incorporating flood defences? I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that last weekend the M25 was blocked. That has an impact on us in Essex and north Kent but it also has a serious impact on the entire UK economy. The Dartford-Thurrock crossing is not so much a tunnel as a funnel, and we need alternative crossings so that people can get to the channel ports and airports without suffering 24 or 48-hour closures.

My hon. Friend raises a serious matter, especially given the location of his Thurrock Constituency. I shall certainly make sure that the relevant Minister responds in detail to the points that he made, as certain issues need to be taken into account in future.

The Leader of the House will have noticed the increasing role of the Attorney-General and his Department in matters that affect the business of the House. At present, we have 10 minutes every four sitting weeks to hold the Solicitor-General to account. Will the Leader of the House agree to increase that time and ensure that we have greater opportunity to hold that important Department to account?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the 10-minute slot is long established. He will know that there are other opportunities to question Ministers on the outcome of a policy. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General advise Ministers who, as was the case with the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who dealt with hunting and its ban, and the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for matters relating to the Guantanamo Bay detainees, can come to the House to answer questions and make a statement. They are the people who ought to be held to account in policy areas about which the House is rightly concerned. I therefore do not accept that there is a need to grant additional time to the Solicitor-General, but we will obviously keep the matter under review.

This week, the management of the national health service proposed changing the staff pension scheme from a final salary scheme to one based on average pay. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important issue? Many of us believe that if something is good enough for MPs it is good enough for the hard-working staff of the NHS.

Consultations are under way with the trade unions, who are concerned about the matter. The Secretary of State for Health is alive to the points made by my hon. Friend.

Following the tsunami disaster, may we have a debate to explore how science can be used to improve detection and early warning for all types of global natural hazards? The lives of more than 100,000 people could have been saved by better warning systems, and science can play an important part in providing such systems.

I very much agree that science has an important role to play, which is why we have greatly increased expenditure on science in Britain. He rightly identified the importance of detecting major disturbances, which is why the Prime Minister asked the chief scientific adviser to look into the matter and report as quickly as possible. I understand from informal conversations that we have the potential and perhaps even the capability at present to monitor such things, so the question is how we can best enable the rest of the world to benefit from that.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent report by the Modernisation Committee on sitting hours and ask him about September sittings, of which I am a great supporter? I understand why there will not be any September sittings this year, but I urge him to introduce a proposal enabling questions to be submitted within a two-week period. That would mean that we would not have a long time from the beginning of the summer recess until October when we are unable to table questions to Ministers.

I am not used to being congratulated at the Dispatch Box.

We love you really.

I do not think that I want that kind of congratulation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend Mrs. Campbell. The Modernisation Committee's report on sitting hours was excellent, and I shall certainly bear in mind her comments. However, this year the House is not sitting in September because, as she knows, security work is being undertaken, as stipulated by the House authorities. We want to keep the matter under review but, because we are changing term times, we should not make a premature decision.

Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the funding of political parties? In our part of the United Kingdom, we have the only party that, if the opinion of the Chief Constable is correct, funds itself through criminal activities, be they drug money from Colombia or the robbery of the Northern bank. Is it not quite improper that one party in the House receives facilities, allowances and offices in the Palace of Westminster and funds its activities both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic to the disadvantage of nationalist parties north and south of the border and other parties that campaign legally, correctly and properly under electoral law on the funding of parties in Northern Ireland?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said when answering questions following his statement to the House a few days ago, the Government want to keep that and other issues under careful review. Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out, but it is not in anyone's interest, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand as a representative from Northern Ireland, to take precipitate action. The key objective and focus must remain to get the peace settlement locked in, with all the parties to it practising democratic politics, not indulging in any kind of criminal activity.

My right hon. Friend may be aware of the key role that the South West of England Regional Development Agency has played in helping me and helping the Government to set up an urban regeneration company. As a consequence of that, Gloucester stands on the verge of a £1 billion regeneration in Gloucester docks. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing time for a debate on the James report, which would asset-strip the RDAs and jeopardise £1 billion worth of regeneration in Gloucester docks, should the Tories ever come back to power?

I would be enthusiastic about finding time to debate the matter. We will see what we can do. As my hon. Friend says, the regional development agencies in the south-west and across England are playing a vital role in regional regeneration and are widely supported, especially in the business community, for the backing that they give to the creation of a dynamic regional economy. The fact that the Conservatives want to abolish regional development agencies and would, as my hon. Friend says, use the James report to asset-strip those key levers of public policy, on top of some £35 billion worth of cuts and £15 billion worth of extra spending, means that there is a £50 billion black hole in their economic strategy, which would put the whole economy at risk.

Among the prerequisites for a free and democratic election are the creation of an electoral register, the ability of those conducting the election to verify that those voting are entitled to vote, and the ability of those voting to vote in peace and without fear of intimidation. Given the Government's support for the elections in Iraq at the end of the month, which the Leader of the House endorsed yet again today, could he find time for a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House well before those elections, in order that the House may be satisfied that those elections will be free and fair, and that the results will be anything other than meaningless?

The Foreign Secretary will wish to keep the House closely informed about progress. With Foreign Office questions coming up in a short while, there may be an opportunity for a report to the House. The momentum for the elections is building and there are now 111 lists containing more than 6,000 candidates registered to contest the national elections. I understand that some 15 million eligible voters have been registered. That is a big advance in democratic terms, compared with the tyranny under Saddam Hussein. It must not be allowed to be disrupted or blown apart by terrorist action, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Gently, may the Father of the House say to the Leader of the House that in parliamentary terms, the answer that he has just given to Mr. Gale on Iraq will not quite do? The Leader of the House says the Foreign Secretary will report to the House. It is high time that the views of the House of Commons were not truncated. They should be expressed in a one or preferably a two-day debate. Unlike the hon. Member for North Thanet, I think that it should be held shortly after the elections, rather than before the elections. Last night in Committee Room 12 the World Service gave a presentation, during which Paul Reynolds quoted Sir Jeremy Greenstock, of all people, as saying that the situation in Iraq had become ineradicable and irredeemable—yes, ineradicable and irredeemable. Those are the words that were used. Would it not be a disgrace if the House of Commons did not debate these crucial matters, preferably in the first week in February—and on an amendable motion?

I will bear in mind the request from the Father of the House. The Foreign Secretary will be answering questions on 25 January—

Questions are not good enough!

I am sure the Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House informed—[Interruption.]

Order. It is nice to see that the Father of the House has recovered, that he is well and that he is giving the Speaker a difficult time.

I agree. I, too, am delighted to see the Father of the House back. [Interruption.] I do mean it. I have a great deal of respect for him. The more he wants to heckle me, with the Speaker's permission, the happier I will be. I just want to ask him a question. [Hon. Members: "You can't."] I want to raise a point, then, with the Father of the House, in the best spirit. Do we want the elections to proceed or not? Exactly the same arguments were made in respect of Afghanistan. The Afghans have now had their first ever democratic election. It was not perfect, but it is a massive advance for democracy in that region. When the elections take place at the end of the month in Iraq, we will see a massive advance for democracy and a defeat for terrorism. Surely we should make common cause in that objective.

I understand the Government are keen on job training schemes. Today the Prime Minister is making a speech on the economy and the Chancellor is meeting world leaders. What conclusions can we draw from that?

The conclusion we draw is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are together facing up to the fact that we as a Government have the most successful economic strategy of any Government in living memory, and that there are big challenges facing our economy in the future because of global pressures—the threat from China, India and other competition from abroad. With our economic stability and success, this Labour Government are taking the economy into a position where Britain can be successful in the world, compared with a Conservative Government, who would throw that success out of the window and risk everything that the British people have worked so hard to achieve in recent years.

Would the Leader of the House publish the true picture of the impact on Commons catering of the changes in sitting hours that we voted for some two years ago? An awful lot of misinformation is being circulated in order to persuade us to go back to the absurd spectacle of the House voting on Laws of the land late into the night. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opponents of change need to come up with stronger arguments?

There will be an opportunity to put the record straight when we debate these matters on 26 January—Wednesday week. It would be good to do so. I am advised that takings in the Refreshment Department are significantly up. I am a great fan of the Members Dining Room and try to get there whenever I can, but the Adjournment restaurant and the Portcullis café arrangements are now much more popular than used to be the case for catering facilities in the House. People's habits are changing. One cannot attribute that entirely to changed sitting hours, but we should make our decision on sitting hours according to what the House of Commons ought to be like in the 21st century, not how it was in Victorian times.

Since the disappointing and depressing statement made by the Secretary of State on Tuesday, it has emerged that £10 million of the £26 million stolen from the Northern bank in Belfast is in untraceable notes, which is a huge boost to the IRA war chest. Again we see Sinn Fein-IRA giving a two-finger salute to our Government, the Irish Government and the American Government. Democratic parties participating in the House and the people whom they represent in Northern Ireland are outraged at what they perceive as inaction against Sinn Fein-IRA.

Further to the request of my hon. Friend David Burnside, will the Leader of the House make it possible for us to have an early debate so that we can discuss the criminal activity attributed to Sinn Fein-IRA, and provide the House with an opportunity to offer some constructive suggestions as to how there could be political progress in Northern Ireland which would exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive and cease to punish truly democratic parties? Such a debate would also provide an opportunity for the House to approve suggestions for proper sanctions against Sinn Fein for their illegal, criminal activity.

We share the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feelings and all want to see an end to criminal and illegal activity from whatever group or source. Equally, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that Sinn Fein has a significant electoral base. It is a major political party in Northern Ireland. While firmly stamping out illegal or criminal activity by anybody in Northern Ireland, it is important that we find a way of getting the devolved legislature back in business and the peace settlement locked in for good.

My right hon. Friend may not be aware of the difficulties that commuters on the Harwich to Liverpool Street main line, which passes through my Constituency, are experiencing. They have occurred following the change in the franchise from First Great Eastern to a strangely titled company called one, which has implemented a new timetable. Fewer trains run at peak times and arrival and departure times are confused compared with the previous timetable. As a result, trains are more crowded than they were and standing is the order of the day. Given the difficulties, which are a particular problem for my constituents in Kelvedon, will my right hon. Friend instigate an early debate on procedures for proper consultation with season ticket holders before a new railway timetable comes into force?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which he is right to raise on the Floor of the House. I will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, who will see what inquiries he can make and get back to my hon. Friend.

Does the Leader of the House recall the Committee composed of senior Privy Councillors of all parties and from both Houses that reported on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in a document published on 18 December 2003? It unanimously concluded that intercept evidence should be permissible in British courts. Does he further recall that the Government promised to respond to that proposal by early 2004? The white paper preceding the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, "One Step Ahead", promised that their response on intercept evidence would be available to the House by June last year. During the course of the autumn, the then Home Secretary made it clear that the response on that important matter would be with the House by the end of last year.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill is now in Committee, and next Tuesday I hope to move an Amendment on behalf of the Opposition to allow intercept evidence to be used in British courts. Does the Leader of the House understand how helpful it would be to the Committee and to the House if the Government were to produce their response on that important matter, which has been delayed for too long?

I commend the hon. Gentleman on the thoroughness of his question. I confess that I am not familiar with all the details, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will take those points seriously.

Those of us who, unlike many Ministers, campaigned for years against Saddam Hussein find the suggestion that because we opposed the war we supported Saddam Hussein deeply insulting. Can we have an urgent debate on the elections? It should be made clear that if the four provinces where most of the violence is occurring do not participate, half the Iraqi electorate will not participate in the election. How can that possibly be free and fair? Is it not time we had a debate on Falluja, where a war crime, for which somebody must be made to answer, has almost certainly occurred?

I did not say that my hon. Friend and others who opposed the war necessarily supported Saddam. I said that we must all take account of the fact that, as a result of military action, Saddam's brutal and murderous tyranny, which I acknowledge that she, like me, opposed, is no longer in power, which is a good thing. On the elections, we obviously want every eligible voter to participate. The elections are being organised under terrorist threat, and we cannot allow terrorists to stop them, which would stop the prospect of democracy being entrenched in Iraq, by intimidating some voters and denying them the opportunity to vote. We cannot give in to terrorism and must ensure that democracy progresses as best it can in the difficult circumstances.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 475, on payroll contributions to the tsunami appeal, which has wide cross-party support?

[That this House notes the concern of aid charities that funds will be more difficult to raise on a continuing basis after the initial publicity surrounding the disaster fades; welcomes the support of many workers and companies for the proposal to donate a day's salary to the Tsunami appeal either in January or throughout the year; notes that such an initiative ensures a continuing flow of funding, attracts gift and relief aid and introduces more people to payroll giving; and further calls on the House authorities to make the facility available to honourable and Right Honourable Members to allow them to participate in the continuing campaign in addition to their own existing contributions to Constituency and national fundraising.]

In particular, early-day motion 475 includes the suggestion that the House authorities should make available to hon. Members the facility to donate one day's pay to the tsunami appeal through the gift aid scheme. Has the Leader of the House had a chance to take up the matter with the House authorities, and will he make a statement?

If any hon. Member wants to make such a donation by means of the payroll, I am sure that the House authorities will help, but I do not want to impose a universal scheme on hon. Members because the level of donation is an individual decision. I am sure that we have all contributed—I have, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has—and we can do that without having our donations docked from our pay. If hon. Members choose to donate in that way, however, I am sure that the House authorities will respond positively to a request from the hon. Gentleman or any other supporter of the motion.

Given the upset and outrage felt by many TV licence holders throughout the length and breadth of this country about the screening of the programme, "Jerry Springer—The Opera", on Sunday on BBC2, which has led to an unprecedented level of complaints, will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the standard of programming in the BBC as part of the charter renewal programme?

My hon. Friend has made his point, but the matter is for the BBC. Many hon. Members would criticise me if I said that Ministers should determine the programme content of the BBC, or any other major broadcaster.

Will the Minister explain why the Government have not yet introduced the animal welfare Bill, which was promised in the Queen's Speech and on which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reported in the autumn? Given that the clock is ticking towards a General Election, which we expect later this year, will he assure the House that the Government expect that Bill to have completed all parliamentary procedures before the general election?

Since I do not know when the General Election will be, I cannot possibly give such an assurance. However, our legislative programme is dynamic. We are making enormous progress on Second Readings, in Committee and even on remaining stages, and the animal welfare Bill is part of that process.

May we have an early debate or perhaps a statement from the Chancellor on the child trust fund? I do not want to debate the merits of the fund, which are fairly clear—more than 1,000 children in my Constituency are already scheduled to benefit. The matter that needs debating is the future of the fund in the perhaps unlikely event that a Government who were committed to billions of pounds of public expenditure cuts came to power. Could such a Government remove eligibility for the child trust fund not only from future parents and children, but from children who are already in receipt of it? We should consider that important matter of public policy in this House.

A debate, perhaps on an Opposition motion and entitled "Baby Bond Stealers", would be very good. If I can find time, I may well be encouraged to arrange such a debate, because the issue is very serious. If the child trust fund were abolished, tens of thousands of youngsters would be deprived of up to £500, and certainly £250, deposited by the taxpayer with the Government's organisation in a bond for life. If we are re-elected, when children reach the age of 17 we will double that deposit and allow relatives to contribute.

Seven.

Did I say 17? I meant seven. If a different Government came to power and sought to abolish that scheme, would they retrospectively steal that money? The Liberal Democrats in particular must answer that question, because they opposed the child trust fund. The Conservatives have not made their minds up yet, and they are accountable not only to babies, but to all the parents who have benefited from the policy.

One of the most pressing issues that currently faces Scottish farmers, which was not raised at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, is the future of the rural development regulation, which includes about £150 million of associated funding for Scotland. Given the uncertainty about the future of less favoured areas, will the Leader of the House ensure that an early debate occurs, so that we can inform Ministers about the strength of feeling on those issues in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK?

I realise the importance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and the Secretary of State will have carefully noted the points that he made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a regulatory reform order on reform of the civil registration service in England and Wales has been rejected by the Regulatory Reform Committee? Among other measures, that would have delivered the right of registration officers to go to an employment tribunal should they be unfairly dismissed. As patron of the Society of Registration Officers, I have campaigned on that matter in this House since 1997. Will my right hon. Friend seek a statement from the Chancellor on how the Treasury will proceed on this now more than urgent matter, which could be dealt with separately from the other reforms that were in the regulatory reform order?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's diligent expertise in this area. The Government are reviewing the reports published by the House of Commons and House of Lords Scrutiny Committees and considering how best to proceed. As part of that process, we are actively consulting the key stakeholders, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be one of them.

How can the Leader of the House possibly justify the Foreign Secretary's not coming to the Dispatch Box in the very week when our American allies have closed down the Iraq survey group and admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Does not he realise that if many Members of this House, including me, had known then what we know now, we would not have voted to go to war?

Honest differences of opinion are held on the war—I understand that. I do not wish to repeat myself, but this matter was the subject of a detailed statement by the Foreign Secretary last autumn, when he was asked detailed and challenging questions, and there has been nothing new. I think I am right in saying, though I stand to be corrected, that the Iraq survey group has not shut up shop and is doing other work, but there is no question but that it did not find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction—that is not in dispute, and the Government have accepted its conclusions.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate or a statement on the proper procedures for the closure of fire stations? The chief fire officer in South Yorkshire proposes to close Mosborough fire station in my Constituency. There has been no contact with me or with elected local councillors, no information leaflet for the public, no detailed statement to the press, and no proposal to hold a public meeting. It would be helpful if a Minister came to the House to make a statement on what they would regard as the proper procedures to be gone through on this matter, which concerns and alarms many of my constituents.

I am sure that it does concern and alarm my hon. Friend and his constituents. I understand that the consultation period ends on 11 March. However, it is surprising, to me at least, that he has not been properly informed about the matter. I hope that he will take the opportunity to insist that he be properly consulted.

May we have a debate on the financial assistance scheme that the Government have rightly set up to try to help people who have had their pension schemes destroyed as a result of firms going into liquidation? Such a debate would allow us to raise the case of APW Electronics Ltd. in Eastleigh. It has not gone into liquidation, but only because it was able to blackmail its work force into accepting a huge reduction in their pension returns, or else the company would be liquidated. My party has stated that it would use the unclaimed assets in dormant bank and building society accounts to bail out people in such situations. Will the Government do the same?

I am sure that that issue was debated during the passage of the Pensions Act 2004 during the previous Session. Through that, the Government have established the Pension Protection Fund, which is a big advance for the future. We have also provided extra funding for those who have been so scandalously robbed of their pensions. However, there will be an opportunity to raise the matter at Department of Trade and Industry questions on 27 January.

May I bring my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 425?

[That this House notes the suspension of copyright payments by Littlewoods and Vernons Pools Ltd. to professional football clubs; is concerned about the effect of this loss of income on smaller clubs; and urges the pools companies to resolve the situation as soon as possible.]

The motion refers to the withdrawal of much needed revenue from the football clubs by the pools companies. Some £5 million has been taken out of the beautiful game and put into the players' agents' pockets. That is money that could be used to develop the skills of our youngsters. Will my right hon. Friend ask the appropriate Minister to make representations to the football authorities in order that that money can be kept in the game? After all, if football players want representation with their employers they can join a trade union, like the rest of us.

I hope that they do join trade unions like the rest of us; indeed, I encourage all individuals in work to do so. As for the Ministers concerned, I guess that those at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and possibly the Department of Trade and Industry will want carefully to note the points that my hon. Friend makes.

We all welcome the response of the world and our own nation and people to the Indian ocean disaster. We have been warned, however, that we should not take our eye off the ball in relation to other ongoing tragedies. May I ask for a statement in the near future from the International Development Secretary on the situation in Montserrat? It is nearly 10 years since the earthquake tragedy there, and some people who were given temporary protective status in the United States have now been told that it will be lifted at the end of February because the situation is no longer temporary but will become permanent. What are we doing as a nation to deal with our own fellow citizens in Montserrat?

I will certainly draw that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 451, which concerns fee charging for ATMs?

[That this House condemns the policy of high street banks to sell off their non-branch based ATM machines; notes that many have been replaced by ATMs which charge an average of £1.50 per withdrawal; further notes that fee-charging ATMs are disproportionately located in poorer areas where few people can afford to travel to free alternatives; is concerned that this is a particular problem for people whose state benefits are paid into their bank accounts, and who are therefore charged simply for receiving their benefits; is disappointed that the Royal Bank of Scotland has not done more to alleviate this problem since it acquired Hanco, which operates around a quarter of all fee-charging ATMs; concurs with the Citizens Advice Bureau and the National Consumer Council, who have criticised the Royal Bank of Scotland for effectively levying a tax on the poor through their actions; further concurs with Gamblers Anonymous, who have criticised Hanco for locating an ATM in an amusement arcade in Glasgow; and calls on the Royal Bank of Scotland and other high street banks to guarantee the future of free withdrawal facilities at ATMs in disadvantaged areas.]

The motion refers to the despicable conduct of the Royal Bank of Scotland, in the guise of Hanco, in charging people £1.50, and sometimes more, in the poorest areas of my Constituency. It is attacking the elderly and the poor. There is no problem in the rich parts of the constituency—ATMs are not put in those areas because people there can afford to travel to the free ATMs. Is it not time that we had a debate on this matter, that these finance companies were brought to book, and that rules were established on ATMs, particularly those in areas where the poor and elderly live?

My hon. Friend raises a very serious point. We are all concerned about this problem, especially as it affects poorer people—especially the elderly, those without cars or those on low incomes—who, as he implies, may not have the necessary transport to get to a bank to draw out money free of charge. That is a serious matter that the Minister concerned will want to consider carefully.

The value-added league tables published today show very clearly not only that grammar schools have been more effective than comprehensive schools but that selective education systems, such as the one in my borough of Trafford, achieve better results than comprehensive systems across the country. May we have a statement from the Government setting out how they might change their policy in order to withdraw some of their discriminatory policies against grammar schools? In particular, can grammar schools be allowed to expand where they are successful and parents want it, as other schools can?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have encouraged diversity. Indeed, specialist schools, although criticised when they were first proposed, have been hugely successful. What we see across the board under this Government is the record investment that is going into schools, with the recruitment of tens of thousands more teachers and classroom assistants, investment in IT equipment, and a steady rise in standards compared with the dismal record of Conservative Governments. I should have thought that that was the issue that the hon. Gentleman should focus on; it is certainly that on which the electors will decide when it comes to the General Election.

I found the Leader of the House's reply to my hon. Friend Mr. Luke deeply disappointing. Has he seen early-motion 488, which concerns "Jerry Springer—the Opera" and was tabled by Mr. Donaldson and signed by several Members, including me?

[That this House regards with dismay the decision by the BBC to broadcast Jerry Springer—The Opera on BBC2, causing widespread offence to Christians and those of other faiths by its mocking portrayal of Jesus Christ, Holy Communion and some of the central tenets of the Christian faith; condemns the show's juvenile and offensive use of repeated profanity in an attempt at humour; further notes that it is particularly serious that the show should have been transmitted by the publicly-funded national broadcaster and questions whether it places the Corporation in breach of its Charter; laments the arrogant dismissal of Christian concerns by the content of programmes aired by the BBC; and calls on the Government publicly to rebuke the corporation for its attack on the religion adhered to by over 70 per cent. of the UK population and for its lowest common denominator approach to ethics in its attempts to chase ratings.]

Anyone who saw that programme will have been dismayed by its unremittingly juvenile, offensive and blasphemous content. Is it not the case that the BBC, as its ratings go downhill, is taking the lowest-common-denominator approach to that? Does not this House have a role to play in reacting to that, not dismissing it as did the Leader of the House in his reply to my hon. Friend?

I understand the passion with which my hon. Friend expresses his point. I do not seek to dismiss anything but I do not think that it is for me, as Leader of the House, to pronounce on a specific programme or to set standards. That is a matter for the BBC, which needs to bear in mind feelings in the House of Commons and among the public. I am sure that the director-general will register my hon. Friend's point.

Is it possible to hold a debate on the consequences of maladministration in the tax credit system, especially its effect on many of my constituents and others, who were overpaid by the system through no fault of their own and are now having money recovered from them? Does the Leader of the House appreciate that people who are by definition on low incomes find it difficult when that income is reduced still further by having to pay back money that they have spent in good faith on the upkeep of their families?

Of course the Government are concerned about any instances of maladministration but I am not sure about the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Surely he should praise the Government's introduction of tax credits, which have benefited millions of hard-working families and individuals. If I am right, the Liberal Democrats did not support or vote for that proposal. The electors will want to bear that in mind because millions of people on low incomes have benefited. In addition, people have been brought into work when perhaps it would not have been worth their while to work previously. That has led to high employment and a lower cost to the public purse for benefit payments.

May we please have a debate on Darfur, western Sudan? Given that the African Union force is clearly not preventing the mass murder of innocent civilians in Darfur, that violence now afflicts the internally displaced persons camps, and that the Janjaweed militias continue to run riot, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a debate in Government time in the main Chamber would allow hon. Members to argue that the international community has a moral duty to act now, not through a monitoring force but by the despatch of a substantial peacekeeping force, which alone will allow us to stop the slaughter there before it is too late?

The hon. Gentleman is a more passionate spokesman on those matters than anyone else on the Conservative Benches and the House welcomes that. He makes an important series of points and the Government acknowledge them. We shall certainly bear them in mind and I shall ensure that both the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary are aware of the points that he has raised today.