Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are back to business as usual this morning. Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 31 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill.

Tuesday 1 November—Second Reading of European Union (Accessions) Bill.

The House will be asked to approve motions on the House of Commons Commission; Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund; House of Commons Members' Fund and Public Accounts Commission.

Wednesday 2 November—Consideration in Committee of the Terrorism Bill.

Thursday 3 November—Continuation of Consideration in Committee of the Terrorism Bill.

Friday 4 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 7 November—Second Reading of the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill.

Tuesday 8 November—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Administration Bill.

Wednesday 9 November—Report Stage of the Terrorism Bill.

Thursday 10 November—Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill.

Friday 11 November—Private Members' Bills.

Yesterday the Home Office indicated that it was considering a new "three strikes and you're out" system for supermarkets suspected of selling drinks to under-age drinkers. You have told Ministers on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that new policy initiatives should be announced in the House, not through the media. Once again, the first we heard of that announcement was through the media. Why?

When will a Foreign Office Minister come to the House to brief us about the Government's response to the very worrying comments made about Israel yesterday by the Iranian President? I am sure the Leader of the House shares my great concern about what was said.

Following yesterday's revelations from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, may we have an urgent statement from a Minister in that Department? In particular, the House needs more details about the discussions that have taken place with DNA Bioscience about possible future work with the Child Support Agency. May we also be told what steps are being taken to ensure that no conflict of interest can possibly arise over the substantial shareholding in the company held by the Secretary of State's family, which may increase substantially in value if the company succeeds in winning business from the CSA?

Given the difficulties that both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister's wife are experiencing, may we also have an urgent statement from the Prime Minister about the proposal to create a referee for the ministerial code? Had such a person been in post, the current embarrassment over these difficulties might have been avoided. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee on Standards in Public Life made such a recommendation to the Government, which the Prime Minister initially accepted, but nothing has happened since then. In the summer the Committee strongly criticised the Government's failure to act. Will the Government please explain that failure to the House?

Finally, there have been reports this week of turmoil in the Cabinet—in particular the suggestion that the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport squared up to each other in the battle over smoking in public places. Would it be sensible for the Leader of the House to ask the Administration Committee to investigate whether Ministers in such a position should be offered anger management counselling to ensure that the strong emotions that clearly exist in the Cabinet do not lead to someone getting hurt?

The hon. Gentleman previously had a distinguished career in the media. I would not seek to advise him about the things that he chooses to believe or not to believe, but his previous career has probably given him a predisposition towards believing what he reads in the newspapers. I caution him against that. I realise that his training may have prepared him to do that—

So it is true, then!

I am simply giving the gentlest advice to Chris Grayling.

On supermarkets, I would not judge that that was a policy initiative. I hope that all hon. Members would recognise that it is a matter of enforcing the existing law. The convention, to which Ministers adhere, has always been that new policy announcements should be made on the Floor of the House. We are simply ensuring that the law, which has existed for a long time, is properly enforced. I hope the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will join me in welcoming that.

On Iran, that is a very disturbing development. I want the House to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has instructed that the Iranian chargé-d'affaires be summoned to the Foreign Office, where he will be told in no uncertain terms of the displeasure that the Government feel about those statements. I have seen some details of the speech, which I thought was thoroughly sickening. Not only this country, but other countries will be protesting about it.

I assure the House that it is my understanding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has satisfied all the relevant rules relating to his position and that of his family. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Prime Minister's wife. I am sorry he did that. He received a letter earlier this year from the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend Mr. McCartney, who speaks on behalf of the Cabinet Office. Nothing new has occurred since then. There is no change in the position from what was set out in that letter.

In my opening remarks I dealt sufficiently with the hon. Gentleman's final point.

May we have a debate on the prospects for this winter? Several hon. Members have mentioned possible problems with energy supply, so may I approach the matter from a slightly different position? If predictions of a severe winter are correct, many elderly people will be at risk. We know that when the average winter temperature last fell below 4° C, in 1995, 40,000 pensioners, sadly, lost their lives. Any money that goes to pensioners is always welcome, but 10 times more is spent on winter fuel payments than on the Fuel Poverty insulation scheme. We know that a third of pensioner households still lack adequate heating or insulation, so would it not be better to invest a little more in making pensioners' houses warmer not just this year, but every year?

May we have a debate on the tax credit system? The Paymaster General appears to be startlingly ignorant about what is going on in her Department. She appeared before the Treasury Sub-Committee yesterday, and when she was asked by my hon. Friend Lorely Burt about the ombudsman's finding of "systemic maladministration", she said:

"I don't know what she means".

Every other hon. Member knows what the ombudsman means because of the people who come to our surgeries, so surely it is time that we had another debate on the subject.

May we have a debate on conflict resolution? I hear what the Leader of the House says about the point made by Chris Grayling, but it seems that some decisions in Cabinet take an unconscionably long time to sort out. I am sure that we could find better ways of resolving disputes so that the House can get on with its business.

I anticipate that the question of energy supplies will be important. I made it clear yesterday in a different capacity—I suspect that is the right expression—that the Government keep the matter closely in mind. We have planned and prepared. I do not know whether this is the hon. Gentleman's intention, but it would not be especially helpful to debate the prospects for the weather this winter. I assure him, however, as I assure the House, that we have appropriate contingency measures in hand.

May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an observation made by Matthew Farrow, the CBI's head of environment policy? He said as recently as 20 October:

"We don't see any situation in which households will be affected or even small businesses."

It is clear that even the CBI, representing British business, realises that we have the matter properly in hand. We must take weather warnings seriously, but we must not talk up a crisis unnecessarily. I emphasise the fact that we have the matter fully in hand.

I accept that all right hon. and hon. Members regularly receive representations about problems with the tax credits system, but I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General was making it clear that the problem was not systemic—that is my experience, at any rate. There are a number of cases in which problems arise—generally, in my experience, as a result of significant changes to the circumstances of the people involved. Computer systems must be able to keep track of those changes and respond to them promptly, and I know that the matter is being addressed in the Treasury.

On decisions in Cabinet, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is offering his assistance to resolve these very difficult questions—I think that he will have to wait some time yet.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable interest, especially among Labour Members, in many of the provisions in the new education white paper. He will also be aware of Labour Members' great enthusiasm for the White Paper's prominence to the concept of fair admissions. Does he accept, however, that the concept requires further clarification, especially regarding the role of selection by ability and by interviewing children? Will he find time for a debate on the concept of fair admissions so that we can clarify the matter in the near future?

My hon. Friend is right to address this vital part of the white paper. It is clear from my reading of the White Paper that it is permissive, in the sense that it does not provide a prescription for every part of the country. It allows parents much more say in the way in which their local school is managed and operated and in the various principles upon which it operates.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is describing a way of raising standards across the country but not necessarily saying that every structure for every part of the country will be identical. That is important because there are clear differences in the way in which children attend schools in London compared with other parts of the country. It is right that we find a way of ensuring higher standards that is consistent with what my hon. Friend says about fair funding and fair admissions.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the ongoing interest in the operation of the sub judice rule, not least in the light of the tragic events in London in July. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Mr. Denham, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, has requested that the Procedure Committee look again at the sub judice rule.

The Procedure Committee produced an excellent report on the sub judice rule in the previous Parliament. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an early debate on it so that the Procedure Committee, in the light of the Government's response, can further consider the sub judice rule?

I am sure that that excellent report was the result of the excellent chairmanship of the Procedure Committee at the time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not in any way casting doubt on the quality of that report in his suggestion about the need for further consideration. This is an important subject and I recognise that it is one that concerns right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is one that has to be approached with a degree of sensitivity. We cannot have unbridled commentary on current court cases. If that were to happen, judges and potential jurors would be placed in some difficulty. There has to be a balance. I thought that the previous report was a very good one. If there is serious concern that it did not go sufficiently far in addressing problems raised by Members, that is something that we should look at again.

Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on early-day motion 880 on the construction company, AMEC?

[That this House condemns the decision taken by AMEC to close its Adlington site; recognises that the company was established in Adlington by Leonard Fairclough 120 years ago and its subsequent success has been based on the loyal and highly skilled workforce in Adlington; expresses surprise at the decision given that brand new office facilities have only recently been built at Adlington only to find that in a short period of time they are abandoning the site; and calls on the management to repay this loyalty, review this decision and maintain their site in Adlington, helping to support the local economy.]

AMEC has been based in the village of Adlington in the Chorley Constituency for 120 years. The different generations of families who have worked for the company made it very profitable. Indeed, it is one of the largest construction service companies in the world. We found out yesterday that it is willing to close its base in Adlington, where more than 200 jobs are based. That is the way in which the company is responding to the loyalty of the work force. There is no compassion in the company. It is only right to have a debate on the company, and on the chairman in particular.

My hon. Friend is right to raise an important issue for his Constituency. I well understand why he makes the point. It is important that companies fully recognise the effect of their decisions on communities. My hon. Friend has made his point extremely effectively.

May we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Health to explain the shambles surrounding the Government's policy on smoking? We have seen a breakdown of collective Cabinet responsibility and of the normal confidentiality that surrounds Cabinet discussions. Do we not need a statement so that it can be explained why a Scottish Labour Member—the Secretary of State for Defence, whose constituents will benefit from a totally smoke-free environment in public places—has used his influence to impose on my constituents a less healthy option?

This is a difficult issue. No one is pretending that these issues cannot be resolved sensibly. The issue is one of balancing the freedom of individuals not to suffer unwarranted exposure to cigarette smoke against the interests of not turning those people who want to smoke into pariahs in our society. That was put extremely well by the Shadow Leader of the House when he made that observation, and it indicates that all political parties have their debates on this question. I should have thought that Sir George Young would welcome the fact that there was such public discussion of these issues.

I regularly receive complaints that, in fact, such issues are decided behind locked doors and that there is no possibility of having that kind of public discussion. Indeed, I congratulate the Conservative party on the various approaches it takes to the issue. In Wales, the Conservative health spokesman supported the ban on smoking in public places; in Scotland, the Conservative health spokesman opposed the ban. However, those positions are models of clarity compared with that of the shadow Health Secretary, who said in a speech last month that the Conservatives would replace the Government's plans

"either with the provision for a self-regulated approach, or a full statutory ban on smoking in public places."

So it appears that, in this country, the Conservative party's official position is both for and against a ban.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the feeling in the House on 7 July, when the mass murders took place? May we have a statement on whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will increase the compensation? I hope that the compensation will increase, but it is possible that any such increase will not apply retrospectively to the victims of the mass murderers of 7 July. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the point, which some hon. Members have repeatedly raised in the House, that it is only right that those who have suffered the most terrible injuries—the loss of one or both legs, arms and so on—should be properly compensated? They should be able to live the rest of their lives with every form of medical and financial support so that they can have a life after what occurred. I hope that such a statement will be made in the very near future. There is great concern on this issue.

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising this issue and I congratulate him on continuing to do so. He raised it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made clear our determination to ensure that early payments are made and to look again at the whole question of criminal compensation cases. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is important not only that we provide proper, speedy and effective compensation, particularly to the victims of terrorism such as that which took place on 7 July this year, but to recognise that there are many victims of crime who deserve fair compensation as a result of their injuries.

The Leader of the House may be aware of the crisis in NHS dentistry in north Wales. This month, a surgery in Colwyn Bay closed its doors to NHS patients, leaving 7,000 of my constituents without access to an NHS dentist. In the whole county of Conway, there are now no NHS dental surgeries that accept new adult patients. Given that the collapse of the dental service amounts to a serious breach of the Welsh Assembly Government's statutory obligations on health care, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on whether proceedings should be instituted against the Assembly, pursuant to schedule 8 of the Government of Wales Act 1998?

Hon. Members raised the issue of dentistry on a number of occasions during business questions in recent weeks, so I conducted some research. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I state the obvious: the training of dentists takes a number of years. There appears to have been a significant cut in the training of dentists under the last Conservative Government, who significantly reduced the number of places available, and it has inevitably taken some time to improve the number of dentists, simply because of the length of the training that is required. About 1,000 new, trained dentists are now available across the country. Obviously, we will continue to expand the number of places to ensure that that provision is available generally in the whole of the United Kingdom.

May we have an early debate about setting up a joint committee of the House and the US Congress to investigate very serious allegations against an hon. Member, to whom, of course, I have sent a note informing him that I would raise this matter today? Of course I cannot comment on those allegations. Mr. Galloway employs very expensive libel lawyers to stop any press investigation into his role as Lord Haw-Haw for one of the worst tyrants in world history who is responsible for killing more Muslims than anyone else in the history of that great religion. Surely, we need a joint Congress and Commons committee of inquiry to settle the truth once and for all, because if any of the allegations of financial receipts—the financial trade is vital—in this report are true, not just the hon. Member's reputation but that of the House is at stake if it does not deal with it. I ask my right hon. Friend to contact his opposite number in the US Congress, set up that committee and clear up this matter once and for all.

rose—

Where is Galloway?

Order. Remarks like that are not helpful. Mr. MacShane asked a question that was within order, but the hon. Gentleman is out of order by shouting, "Where is Galloway?" That is totally out of order.

My right hon. Friend has more than made his point given the content of his question. Obviously, the House should take the matter seriously, but I remind him that we had a brief discussion at the start of business questions about the sub judice rule, and as I understand that the matter is being referred to the appropriate legal authorities in the United States for their consideration I had best leave his words to speak for themselves.

The Chancellor likes to lecture Opposition Members about the economy's productivity and efficiency under his stewardship. Will the Leader of the House please take a lesson from the Chancellor in organising his Department so that he can inform the House of what hours we are likely to sit and over what period two or three months hence?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the sitting hours of the House has been a vexed question for a number years and that we are currently operating a compromise arrangement for hours of work. I hope that he would agree that, whatever our personal views of the present arrangements, we ought to allow that compromise to continue for some time. If he was referring to the wider question of the calendar and sitting dates for Parliament, I assure him that I will put him out of his misery quite soon.

Will the Leader of the House consider making time available for a debate on the contribution of senior citizens to our national life? In particular, will he consider the idea of marking a specific date in the calendar as senior citizens awareness day? A very strong campaign for that is based in Bilston in my Constituency, led by the redoubtable campaigner, Tom Larkin. I am sure that that idea would receive wide support from all parties in the House, and I ask him to give serious consideration to it.

I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent. I have had the privilege of visiting Bilston from time to time and I know just how strong and effective that community is. I also understand from him how effective that community is in supporting its senior citizens. I am sure that the idea can be given serious consideration.

Last week, there was a call to hold a debate on trade justice to coincidence with the mass lobby of Parliament on Wednesday next week. Predictably, looking at today's business statement, there is no such space for any such debate. Does the Leader of the House agree that the House should be responsive to our constituents' concerns, especially when they are prepared to come to the House in such vast numbers? Will he do all that he can to persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House at least to make a statement on the Government's intentions in that respect?

We are not divided over that issue. The Government strongly support trade justice. Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and other Ministers involved in international negotiations have put the case very forcefully. Indeed, it is fair to say that the Government have led the way in arguing, not only in those international discussions but domestically, that it is important that we develop those principles. If the hon. Gentleman were being fair, instead of implying criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he would congratulate him.

Will the Leader of the House find time for not only a statement but a full debate in the House on Iran to discuss the implications of the President of Iran's appalling statement recently and the response of the president of the Iranian resistance, who said:

"I again declare that a third option, namely democratic change through the Iranian people and resistance, is the only serious option in dealing with the Mullah's unbridled dictatorship, which is not only the enemy of the Iranian people, but also the enemy of peace, democracy and humanity."

It is time that we had the opportunity to debate in the full and in the round on the Floor of the House the potential of those who are committed to democratic change indigenously within the region.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have already indicated to the House the Government's serious concern about the statement made by the new Iranian President. Other aspects of what is happening in Iran at present are causing the Government considerable anxiety. I certainly recognise that this is a matter that the House will want to consider in more detail at a later date.

Does the Leader of the House recall from his time as Secretary of State for Defence the settlement announced in 2000 of claims for the British internees in the far east under the Japanese, and the award of £10,000 for each of them? Five years later the Government stand condemned by the parliamentary ombudsman for retrospectively excluding about 700 people who suffered in that way. May we have a statement on the Floor of the House from the Minister with responsibility for veterans about the derisory offer of £500 compensation to those people affected, instead of him continuing to shelter—it saddens me to say this—behind what have so far been two written Ministerial Statements?

The hon. Gentleman has followed these matters with great care, and I heard supporting voices from the Opposition Benches, but I was very proud of what the Government did in providing compensation to far eastern prisoners of war. My father served in the far east and I recognise that that was a particularly brutal and nasty aspect of conflict that affected many people. It is necessary that these decisions are subject to rules, and I assure him that a great deal of thought and care was given to drawing them up. This was a matter not of looking at the cost, but of trying to ensure that the rules were fair. The hon. Gentleman referred to 700 people. I hope that he will take it from me that drawing in another group will not necessarily solve the problem to which he refers, because by adjusting the rules to take account of a further group, another larger group may well become eligible. These matters have also been subject to litigation. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and other relevant Ministers look at these issues with as much compassion and sensitivity as possible. Bearing in mind that no previous Government had taken such a decision, we brought forward the scheme because we felt that the country owed a debt of honour to those people who suffered in that way in the course of the second world war. But it is not possible simply to provide an unlimited scheme. The scheme has to be subject to certain rules, and those rules necessarily unfortunately exclude some people from participation.

I, too, would like to ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on fair trade, but I should like to ask for it from a positive perspective, because it could be used to encourage local authorities to become fair trade councils. Local authorities could encourage events such as those that are taking place in my Constituency on Saturday, where a house has been turned into a fair trade shop in which Fairtrade goods will be sold, so that the communities are encouraged to buy those products. I congratulate Lesley Wilson, who has championed the cause in my constituency.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter in such a positive way. This is something that the Government take extremely seriously, and I know that it is also taken seriously by a number of local authorities throughout the country. I am delighted that her local authority and people in her Constituency are promoting the event on Saturday.

I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware that some major international decisions on space matters are due shortly, namely on global monitoring for environment and security, Galileo and Aurora, all of which affect several Departments of State and research councils. In addition, at the European Space Agency's ministerial council in December, important decisions will be made on the level of UK participation in those European flagship programmes. Will the Leader of the House give some serious thought to whether we can have a debate in Government time on space matters so that we can probe the Government on their intentions for UK participation and highlight some of the first-class science that is being carried out by British firms and research establishments?

I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising these important issues, not least by giving such emphasis to science, which is sometimes neglected in our discussions in the House and in the country, despite the fact that we have some of the world's leading scientists and some of the best research on these questions. I am always intrigued by the range of my responsibilities. I am delighted that they extend into space, and I shall certainly encourage my colleagues to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of the way in which those particular issues develop in the course of the British presidency.

Will my right hon. Friend organise an early debate on the future of the special steels industry, which would allow an opportunity for Sheffield Members to raise the worrying announcement this week from Outokumpu, a large steel producer in my Constituency, of 700 redundancies? I want to seek assurances that the Department of Trade and Industry and Yorkshire Forward will use every possible endeavours, first to save what jobs and production capacity we can, secondly to ensure the future of the remaining 800 jobs, and finally to give every assistance to those workers who do lose their jobs to find alternative work and to obtain the necessary retraining.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that disturbing development. I was aware of that prospective announcement, and it is a matter that I know will cause grave concern in and around Sheffield, which has such a great heritage, particularly in the special steels industry. I am well aware that the matter will cause great anxiety to families and people in Sheffield, and it is important that they are supported. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will provide appropriate support and assistance to those who may be affected by the announcement. The Government certainly take the matter seriously.

May we have an early debate in Government time on the Government's plans for post-primary education in Northern Ireland and the Government's attack on Ulster's fine grammar schools? Such a debate would provide an opportunity for the Government to correct what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said earlier at Question Time when she said that this had the support of, and had originated in, the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is not the case, because the Assembly did not have the opportunity to vote on the matter, and the people of Northern Ireland have made it clear, through a household survey of the entire Province, that they reject the Government's plans. May we have an early debate so that the Government can be tackled on the issue?

I am slightly disappointed in the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman to education matters in Northern Ireland, not least because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently announced a specific fund to help the education and training of young people and students in Northern Ireland, amounting to some £45 million in the next financial year, rising to £55 million thereafter. That demonstrates the determination of my right hon. Friend and the Government to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from higher standards of education and training across that part of this country.

As I take it that the Leader of the House will not afford a debate on education changes in Northern Ireland, will he afford a debate in Government time on the Government's proposals for the review of public administration? We want to debate not just the question of the future shake up of local government, but the implications for the picture of inequality that already exists in Northern Ireland as a result of the distribution of Government jobs, newly created jobs, employment and long-term unemployment, which all show a deep and graphic disparity, as demonstrated on maps produced by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. In the context of such a debate, we will be able to question what the Government are doing with jobs that were previously decentralised to my Constituency and that are now under threat, and the implications of the electronic human resources contract being let by the Northern Ireland civil service, which again seems to be going the way of the centralised Belfast approach, and will add to the phenomenon of inequality that in my part of Northern Ireland is becoming known as the Hain drain.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out his concerns in such detail. I am not sure that I will be able to do justice to the full range of issues that he raised, but let me restate the determination of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the form of funding for several initiatives in Northern Ireland. He is demonstrating that he takes very seriously the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Let me emphasise to all right hon. and hon. Members the opportunities afforded by Westminster Hall. There are not always sufficient requests for debates there, and several of the matters that have been raised, including that raised by Mark Durkan, may be suitable subjects for debate in that forum.

The Leader of the House may recall that on 20 July I asked the Prime Minister to look again at the issue of prescription charges for cystic fibrosis sufferers. The Leader of the House will know that those people are affected by an historical anomaly that means that they do not get free prescriptions. Will he arrange for an urgent debate on the plight of vulnerable people? Given, too, the threat facing Alzheimer's sufferers in respect of drug treatment and the Government's failure adequately to address the issue of the early diagnosis of autism in children, a picture is emerging—I am sorry to have to say this—of a heartless Government who are insensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable Britons.

I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's charge. The Government have shown themselves to be remarkably sensitive to the importance of allowing the prescription even of drugs that have not yet entirely completed the licensing process, to use a recent illustration, because of widespread public concern and the need to ensure that effective drugs are brought into use as soon as possible. I am in no way diminishing the importance of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, but they would be a suitable subject for debate in Westminster Hall, which gives right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to debate such important matters.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Transport Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on navigational standards on the Thames? If he is a driver, my right hon. Friend will know that Battersea bridge is closed to motorists as a result of the 10th strike in 10 years, yet it remains perfectly legal to drive a barge in the Port of London without any training and without a licence. Apart from the current incident, which is still being investigated, all those bridge strikes have involved misjudgement or miscalculation by the person navigating the barge.

I know that that is a very important issue not only for my hon. Friend's constituents but for Londoners generally. He is right to draw attention to the question of training and skills for those who drive—I am not sure that "drive" is the right word—barges. It appears that the new boat master's licence for inland waterways, which will become law during 2006, will extend competency requirements to freight-carrying vessels in categorised waters. It is obviously an important issue that needs addressing.

Does the Leader of the House ascribe the recent discord in the Cabinet on smoking to the fact that we have a fag-end Prime Minister? Will he call on the Prime Minister to set an early resignation date so that cohesion and some form of leadership can be restored?

Order. That is certainly not the business of the House.

The answer to the question is no.

May I press the case for an early statement on the Government's position on smoking in public places? The figures are well known and very alarming. Passive smoking kills 30 people every day and kills two employed people every working day. The figures are very alarming and we should acknowledge them. We are told in the press that the Government believe that a partial ban is feasible and a total ban is not easily policed. Those arguments should be expressed on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members have the opportunity to hear them and, frankly, to dispute them.

I have already made it clear that these are difficult issues that require a balance to be struck. When making such judgments, it is always the case that the place where the line is drawn will provoke different reactions from different parts of the community. It is therefore the Government's job, after proper and serious debate, to reach a conclusion. That conclusion has been reached. I remind my hon. Friend, in the politest way possible, that the judgment has been reached on the basis of the manifesto on which she and I were elected and that we argued before the country as a reason for voting for us. It is therefore a proper basis on which to proceed.

The Leader of the House will be aware that this week in the House of Lords the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was amended in a very major sense by a large Majority with all-party support. May I have an assurance that that Amendment will be accepted when the Bill returns to the Commons? If not, may we have a guarantee of extra time to debate the amendment, which has a clear majority in the country and should have a clear majority in this House as well?

The Government were obviously extremely disappointed by the vote in the House of Lords. It is important that the Majority view of the House of Commons should prevail, although I recognise that in such matters it is equally important that there should be a degree of consensus. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be looking to achieve a consensus on the basis, we hope, of agreement in the House of Lords; otherwise, we will have to look at the matter afresh.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the Home Office's intention to outlaw the possession of violent internet pornography, as demanded by Liz Longhurst, the campaigning mother from Reading whose daughter was brutally murdered by a man obsessed with internet images of rape, torture and necrophilia, and who was recently awarded the Pride of Reading prize for her inspiring work. Can the Leader of the House tell us when these matters will be brought before Parliament?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent. I have seen reference to her campaign in the media. I recognise that this is an important subject and one that all parents are concerned about, and I hope that she continues and is successful.

Will the Leader of the House consider making time for an urgent and full debate on the education white paper, which was brought to the House with a statement this week? I ask because there is obvious confusion and great unhappiness among Members on both sides of the House, and such a debate would give us all the opportunity to air our concerns fully.

Given that we have already had this week a very long and detailed statement together with a very long and detailed opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I am surprised that hon. Members are complaining within a matter of 48 hours. I suggest some detailed reading of the white paper, as an opportunity for further debate and discussion will undoubtedly arise at some stage in the future.