I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box and ask him to give us the business for next week.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is on an overseas ministerial engagement. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to the House for his absence today.

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 5 December—Second Reading of the Work and Families Bill.

I remind the House that on that day my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his pre-Budget report and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government intends to make a statement to the House on the provisional local government finance settlement for England.

Tuesday 6 December—Remaining stages of the London Olympics Bill.

Wednesday 7 December—A debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Thursday 8 December—Estimates [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. Details will be given in the Official Report. At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Friday 9 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 12 December—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.

Tuesday 13 December—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The subject is to be announced. That will be followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Wednesday 14 December—A debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Thursday 15 December—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Friday 16 December—The House will not be sitting.

The House may wish to be reminded that we will rise for the Christmas recess at the end of business on Tuesday 20 December and return on Monday 9 January.

Following is the information: In so far as they relate to the influence of the pharmaceutical industry (Fourth report of the Health Committee, session 2004–05 (HC 42)) and Government response to the Committee's Fourth Report into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry (CM 6655).

I hope that the Leader of the House enjoys his trip. I can well understand his desire to leave the country after the flak that he got last week for delaying the debate on police reform. I am afraid that the Deputy Leader of the House will have to take the flak in his place this week.

Does the Deputy Leader of the House realise how angry Members on both sides of the House are that the Government have again published another week's business and there is still no sign of the reinstatement of the debate on police reforms, even though there are several days on which business is light? The deadline for forces to submit their plans for merger with their neighbours is 23 December. It is simply iniquitous that the House is not being given the chance to debate these matters before that date.

One way of making time would be to postpone the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill until January. It introduces a new disciplinary system for the three armed services and, as Admiral Lord Boyce said recently, the armed forces currently feel under legal siege. Ministers have had months to prepare and it is not right that the Government are now planning to rush the measure through when the Opposition and those interested in it have had so little time to consider it. It is a 250-page Bill and, as yet, there are no explanatory notes for one of the most complex measures in the Session. It is not acceptable to rush it through.

Last week, the Leader of the House dismissed my request for an urgent statement on reports that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Drayson, may have been responsible for a company that sold substandard vaccines to the armed services. Does the Deputy Leader appreciate the importance of those reports? When will Ministers brief the House on what they are doing to investigate them?

The Leader of the House has also consistently ignored my request for a statement on the forthcoming Hong Kong trade talks. They are a fortnight away and the future of millions of people in the developing world depend on them. Hon. Members of all parties want to express their views to the Government. Why are we not being given an opportunity to do so?

When will the House be given a chance to debate the Turner report on pensions? Statements of the sort that we had yesterday inevitably allow only a limited number of hon. Members to ask questions and raise points of concern. The report is sufficiently important to be debated as soon as possible. Are the splits in the Government so bad that Ministers are trying to bury it without letting Members of Parliament have the opportunity to debate it?

The police reforms on which Chris Grayling and other hon. Members have called for a debate have already been the subject of a well-attended Adjournment debate this week. Let me remind hon. Members of the timetable. More than three weeks remain for making representations on the first key round of consultations. Where there is no agreement by police authorities, a further consultation period will take us through next January, February and March. That allows time for the debate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last week and, I believe, the previous week, could happen in the new year.

I note the hon. Member's comments about the Armed Forces Bill. It is important that proper notes, which are as full as possible, are available to all hon. Members and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of that.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that allegations in print against my hon. and noble Friend Lord Drayson appear to have no foundation in fact. There is therefore no intention to hold a debate on them.

It is important to note that not only were the Hong Kong trade talks aired at Department of Trade and Industry questions prior to the business question, but that a report back on them will be made to the House. There has been ample opportunity for debate on the matter and there will be further opportunities to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development next week.

I hope that Lord Turner's report, which was published yesterday, will be the subject of constructive and continuing debate. It would be wrong within 24 hours of its publication to jump to any conclusions and I advise all hon. Members to read it carefully and contribute to the debate.

Could my hon. Friend reassure me that the foundations of Government policy continue to include social justice and economic sustainability? If so, why are we pressing ahead next April with the self-invested personal pension scheme, which offers tax relief on the purchase of homes? That will be enormously expensive—the cost will be greater than the Government anticipate. Will my hon. Friend ask one of the Chancellor's team of Ministers to make a statement to the House and consider the approach of offering such tax relief only if the required houses are made available for social housing? That would be one way of squaring the circle.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. What lies behind the issue is the need for more to be done by individuals and companies to provide for pensions, and the need to remind people that they must make proper provision to enjoy in retirement the lifestyle that they seek to have. The proposal to which he refers is a worthwhile one, which has commanded a lot of support, and it will be yet another way of ensuring that people can provide for their pensions. The Government have ensured, however, that 2 million pensioners have been raised out of poverty, and I am sure that we will continue to do more.

May I point out to the Deputy Leader of the House that the Westminster Hall debate to which he referred allowed perhaps six Members to speak about police restructuring? It is no substitute for a debate in this Chamber.

Is it possible, following the announcements in the last week, to have a debate on the resumption of building nuclear power stations? Many of us feel that those are not economically viable, that they represent a real danger and that they should not be resumed. It would be right for the House to have the opportunity to debate that matter.

Can we have a debate on social services? I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House is aware of the inspection by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which revealed that one in four councils received only nought or one star for social care, which means that those councils are potentially failing vulnerable people, the elderly and children. We do not debate that subject enough in the House, and perhaps we should do so in the near future.

Lastly, can we have a debate on local and regional newspapers? I am aware of early-day motion 1158, tabled by Chris Bryant, which points out the situation in south Wales.

[That this House notes the proposed job cuts at Trinity Mirror in South Wales; further notes that Trinity Mirror in owning Wales on Sunday, the Western Mail, the South Wales Echo, the Rhondda Leader and the Pontypridd Observer, holds a virtual monopoly of the local newspaper market in South Wales; believes that a strong and varied newspaper market is vital to the democratic and journalistic health of South Wales; urges Trinity Mirror to reconsider its policy of combining editorial posts on separate titles; and urges the Competition Commission to consider a review of the South Wales newspaper market.]

We have a similar situation in the west country, with the Bristol Evening Post, Western Daily Press and associated newspapers, which have had substantial job losses over recent months, and we now know that the entire group is up for sale. Does he agree that local and regional newspapers are vital to local communities, that they must have proper news-gathering facilities, and that for our democracy we need local newspapers in independent control that are able to serve the communities that we represent?

The hon. Member raised the issue of the policy on nuclear power stations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made clear, before any decision is taken on proceeding to build any new nuclear power stations, the fullest public consultation and the publication of a White Paper setting out any such proposals will be required. I am sure that there will be ample opportunities to debate the issue on the Floor of the House.

In respect of social services, and particularly social care, it is important that all social services perform at the highest level when protecting and providing services for vulnerable young people as well as the elderly and others. I am sure that the findings of that survey will be studied with care and that appropriate action will be taken to ensure that there are no underperforming services in any part of the country.

On local and regional newspapers, of course they play an important part in disseminating information to people. As I think all hon. Members know, however, modern technology, including internet services, is putting extreme pressures on the print industry. I, for one, hope that that has a vibrant future, and I am sure that it has. I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Member an early debate, but I am sure that his concerns are noted.

My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 434, which deals with the appalling pay and conditions suffered by the House of Commons cleaners, and which has 178 signatories so far.

[That this House values the cleaners who maintain high standards of service to Parliament; believes the parliamentary cleaners should be treated with respect and that it is wrong that, despite the widespread concern over their pay and conditions of employment, their pay has only increased from the national minimum wage of £4.85 per hour to £5 per hour; is concerned that the parliamentary cleaners only enjoy 12 days' paid holiday and have no company sick pay or pension; believes the time has come to end this sorry state of affairs; and urges the parliamentary authorities to reach agreement with the two contractors on making available the necessary resources to ensure that cleaners earn the London living wage.]

Is he aware that the current negotiations would mean major job losses and a reduction in the standard of cleaning, and do not address sick pay, holidays or pensions? Does he agree that the cleaners, who do sterling work in this House, deserve some Christmas cheer?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments although, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has informed the House, it is not ultimately a matter for the Government but for the House of Commons Commission, which has made its position clear—namely, to resolve two of the key issues raised by my hon. Friend. The first is the provision of proper facilities for the cleaners. I gather that those have been provided, but that for some reason they have not so far been taken up. Secondly, there is a substantial pay rise—in excess of 15 per cent.—on the table. No one will lose their job as a result of that pay rise because jobs are available elsewhere, even if not on the Estate and in the House. That is our information.

The parties should get around the table. A 15 per cent. pay rise seems generous given the present rate of inflation, and it is certainly worthy of further talk and negotiation. I hope that they can reach a settlement before Christmas.

The activities of the House are, sadly, increasingly irrelevant to the people of this country, and the ability of the House to do the job that people send us here to do is increasingly undermined. Will the Government, through the Deputy Leader of the House, look again at the request from both sides of the House for a major debate in this Chamber on a matter that is deeply important to everybody in the country, particularly in England and Wales? I refer to the restructuring of the police. We must have a debate on that subject before Christmas or the Government really will be held to account.

I think that I have made it clear that there is not likely to be a debate on the Floor of the House before Christmas, and also that the consultation period will be extended for a further four months in those areas where agreement has not been reached. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, who addressed Members in the Westminster Hall debate, has made it clear that she is willing to talk to individual Members, as well as police forces, who have concerns. The consultation period has not yet ended. There are another three weeks for Members and others to make their views clear, so it seems inappropriate to hold a debate now when the consultation period has not finished.

My hon. Friend may be aware that 28 cancer charities have bonded together to form a cancer campaigning group. Although they recognise the amazing things that have happened under the Government in terms of care, treatment and early diagnosis, there is much more to do. They and many others are of a mind to discuss the possibility of a cancer plan 2 to move things forward. Will my hon. Friend advise me on how we might do that within the procedures of the House, by debate, summit or whatever?

I welcome my hon. Friend's championing of that cause and I know that the cancer campaigning group provides a united voice on cancer issues, keeping cancer on the agenda and at the forefront of people's minds. Every Member will be aware of the lives that have been transformed since 2000 with the introduction of the current cancer plan, which put cancer at the heart of the Government's health policy. Indeed, we have cut death rates for breast cancer in women and lung cancer in men faster than anywhere else in the world and, with the 1,177 more cancer specialists, we intend to cut cancer mortality further.

The Deputy Leader of the House will know that yesterday the Home Office slipped out a new policy on the levels of possession of class A drugs, which will constitute the crime of possession with intent to supply. Why was that announcement made yesterday? Why was it not made to the House, and when will a Minister from the Home Office come here to explain himself or herself?

A consultation document was published on Wednesday. It reflected measures that were called for by the police to set supply thresholds to eliminate any inconsistencies between police forces in catching and prosecuting drug dealers. It removes the excuse used by dealers that their drugs are for personal use only. The House will want to know that there have been record seizures of class A drugs in recent times. I am sure that this will be a subject of continuing debate and discussion within the House. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is supporting what the police were calling for.

My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a huge boost this week to the nuclear power lobby. There are a number of us on the Government Benches who feel that the deep-mine coal industry has a part to play in our future energy needs. We are now down to eight pits. When will we have an urgent debate about taking the industry back into public ownership to guarantee its long-term future?

I fear that neither a debate nor that policy is on the Government's agenda. I stress the important role that coal has played in the past and that I hope it will play in the future in meeting our energy needs.

Can we have a debate on planning laws, and specifically on the PPG3 planning rules that designate people's back gardens as brownfield sites? It enables developers to exploit windfall development sites while true brownfield sites are not necessarily considered. The effect in my constituency and elsewhere is to destroy the character of the area with inappropriate windfall developments. Can we have a debate on this matter?

I am not sure that, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I can promise an early debate on the Floor of the House. I am sure, however, that the subject would be a suitable candidate for an Adjournment debate, which would give the hon. Member a chance to spell out her concerns in more detail.

On the subject of the House of Commons cleaners, I am slightly concerned by the Minister's earlier response. I understand that the proposal on the table would result in up to 30 job losses on the House of Commons Estate, which would mean a major reduction in cleaning standards in this place. May I urge my hon. Friend to do all that he can to bring the Serjeant at Arms to the negotiating table with the trade unions, the cleaners and the contractors to try to bring about a resolution of this dispute?

I recognise that many hon. Members are concerned about this issue. There seems to be a degree of less-than-wholly accurate information being transmitted, although I do not impugn the motives of those who are circulating it. The position is as I have stated. Everyone is guaranteed a job. If my hon. Friend is saying that that job may not be in this place, that reflects what I said a few moments ago. This is a matter not for the Government but for the House authorities. I have set out, I think fairly, the offer that is on the table and have expressed my hope that it is agreed before Christmas.

What is the future of the hapless Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which would effectively give an amnesty to terrorists on the run, bearing in mind that every party in Northern Ireland is opposed to this legislation with the exception of Sinn Fein? It should also be borne in mind that every person who spoke at the meeting of the British-Irish parliamentary body, which met at Edinburgh on Monday, from both north and south of the border was opposed to the legislation. Only one Government Back-Bench Member supported it during the debate. Is it not time that it was knocked on the head completely? It is very bad legislation.

No, it is not—the Bill is part of the peace process, which has brought big dividends to us in this part of the United Kingdom and, most importantly, to Northern Ireland. These are always difficult decisions. Hon. Members have spoken with a great deal of passion and anger about their personal experiences. Nothing can bring back people who have been killed by terrorists. However, we would not be where we are today if we had not embarked on a peace process that required us to move forward rather than to look back. That has been one of the causes of the problems in Northern Ireland. I would expect someone with the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in this area to promote the peace process rather than make criticisms that have been made by others, and which the Government do not accept.

The chief constable of the North Wales force has today criticised the unseemly rush in which the Government are deciding the future of Welsh policing. In Wales, there is a strong feeling that the views expressed by Mr. Giffard on an all-Wales police force do not take into account the peculiar geography and the circumstances within Wales. Will my hon. Friend please reconsider the issue of a debate, particularly on the future of policing in Wales?

Those views are not shared by the association that represents police constables in Wales and the Association of Chief Police Officers. If there are concerns, I have laid out a timetable to my hon. Friend—the decision will be taken after consultation, and the consultation period has not yet ended.

Virtually everything that the Deputy Leader said on policing is wrong. I was lucky enough to be called in the Westminster Hall debate. The Minister did not answer any of my questions. There were Opposition Members right round Westminster Hall to within two seats of where the Parliamentary Private Secretary should have been sitting who were not called. At a debate that I had with the Under-Secretary of State, he could not answer any questions from the chief constable and the chairman of the authority—

Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask a question because he seemed so excited and I wanted to calm him down. It seems that that has not helped. Will he ask a question? If he does so, he may get an answer.

Can we replace the debate on pharmaceutical regulations with a debate on a substantive motion on restructuring the police forces?

The opportunity to have a debate on this issue will arise early in the new year. I am sure that one of the key facts that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to put forward is the increase by 14,000 in the number of police officers, which is why the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate has recommended, in part, a reorganisation of the policing forces.

It is a while ago now since the excellent Animal Welfare Bill was published. There was then an indication that Second Reading would take place before Christmas, but that now seems unlikely. When are we likely to have the Bill before us and why has there been a delay?

I hope that we are able to consider that Bill when parliamentary time allows that to happen. I regret that it has not allowed it to date.

In announcing the new appointments to the Northern Ireland Parades Commission, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to a fresh start on the issue of parades in Northern Ireland, which has caused so many difficulties with attacks on parades and the obstruction of parades. Can we have an early debate so that we make it absolutely clear that as well as fresh faces on the commission, we need a fresh framework in which all of these issues can be discussed and decided by root-and-branch change, and not by tinkering with the problem?

I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Member's concern about this matter, if he is not already.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the significant increases in young women being forced into prostitution in this country, particularly from eastern European countries. Will he arrange for a Government statement on what measures are in place or are proposed to deal with this evil trade in human beings?

I know that my hon. Friend, police forces and enforcement authorities take this matter extremely seriously. Indeed, there was a high profile case this week—it is vital that this evil trade is stamped out. Police authorities have the necessary powers and are using them, and we hope that they will continue to use them as effectively as possible.

The Deputy Leader of the House rightly spoke of the importance of the publication of explanatory notes on the Armed Forces Bill, but I understand that they are not to be published until Friday next week, which is not even a full parliamentary day before Second Reading. The Bill has 373 clauses and 15 schedules, all pretty impenetrable. Will he undertake either to speed up publication of the explanatory notes or to slow down Second Reading?

I undertake to ensure that the explanatory notes are made available as quickly as possible.

Will my hon. Friend press for an early debate on media coverage of Select Committee sittings? There has been a sharp decline in the number of hours of coverage. The independent companies say that it is because they cannot afford it, but one would expect the BBC to step in. Coverage of the scrutiny process is central to our parliamentary democracy.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I raised the issue during an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last month. It is important. I shall ensure that both the House authorities and the BBC are aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and, I am sure, other Members.

I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for giving us his view of how police reorganisation should be debated here, but it is an important issue that affects all Members on both sides of the House. The Government should think again about a debate before the end of the year, so that they may be in a position to assess parliamentary opinion rather than just the opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers, with its method of canvassing for information.

As I have said, there will be a debate. It will take place at the end of the first phase of the consultation that ends later this month, before final decisions are made where there are contentious matters, and before the end of the final consultation period in another four months-plus starting from mid to late December. There will be ample opportunity to debate the reorganisation.

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the Ministry of Defence's honouring of veterans who served in the war could be extended to others who also served in the war, particularly those who were in the Land Army and the Bevin boys. Those people have been applying for badges, but unfortunately have been turned down. Will he use his good offices to try to rectify the position?

I shall ensure that the appropriate Minister is made aware of what my hon. Friend has said.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this time last Thursday, the Leader of the House sought to give us the impression that Members would have an opportunity to debate legislation relating to the reorganisation of the police. It is true that, were Kent to be merged with another county, the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 would have to be amended through primary legislation, but I do not think that that is quite what the Leader of the House had in mind. He knows perfectly well that all the reorganisation can be dealt with by means of statutory instruments.

At the end of the famed Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety sought to explain to the House—as has the Deputy Leader of the House today—that there would be an opportunity for a debate on the police. Almost immediately afterwards, sources very close, shall we say, to the Home Secretary were to be found briefing lobby journalists, saying that the measures would go through, that it was all done and dusted and that it did not matter.

There are two non-sitting Fridays between now and Christmas. Why can we not have the debate on one of them?

In view of the clear strength of feeling among Opposition Members, I might ask why one of their important Opposition days was not used to debate the issue. [Interruption.]

Order. Whatever we do, we must allow the Deputy Leader of the House to reply. Some Members may not be too happy with the reply, but that is another matter.

They have their reply, Mr. Speaker.

May we have a debate next week on regulation of the video games industry? Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1172?

[That this House denounces the recent rise in violent video games; condemns the forthcoming video game Bully, which allows players to adopt the persona of Jimmy Hopkins, a 15-year-old thug who has been incarcerated in a boys' boarding school, and in which points can be scored by terrorising other pupils with a range of physical and psychological abuse; further notes with grave concern that last year more than 31,000 children and young people spoke to a ChildLine counsellor about bullying; and calls on the Government to urge the British Board for Classification to take a much more cautious approach with this game and ban it from being sold in the United Kingdom.]

If my hon. Friend has seen the motion, he will know that Rockstar has decided to publish a game called "Bully", and that a central character is someone called Jimmy Hopkins. Players will be given points as the character terrorises other schoolchildren psychologically. Given the rise of bullying, I believe that the video should be banned. May we have a debate so that we can hear the Government's view?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the continuing concern about the matter. While I cannot offer him a debate, I shall certainly ensure that the Minister responsible for such matters is aware of the concern.

Yesterday, a petition bearing more than 155,000 names was handed in at No. 10 Downing street as part of the continuing campaign to save Scotland's historic regiments. As a Scottish Member, the Deputy Leader of the House will know of the strength of feeling about this issue, and the real anxieties about recruitment. He will also know that the golden threads that were promised for the new regiment look particularly threadbare when we learn that the Black Watch cannot wear the famous and iconic red hackle at all times. May we have a debate in Government time, even at this late stage, to stop this amalgamation madness?

I pay tribute to the veterans and those currently serving in our armed services. The design of the cap badge for the Royal Regiment of Scotland is the culmination of several months of discussion and consultation with both those who are serving and those who have retired. The design was submitted to Her Majesty through the Army dress committee and has been given Royal Assent. It is a requirement for each new regiment to have a unifying symbol and all officers and soldiers in this new regiment will wear the new cap badge from formation day.

An announcement was made earlier in the year that recognised the strong identification that local people and those who have served in regiments feel with historic regiments. Many aspects will be preserved, not just dress but museums and anniversaries. I think that the Government have gone a long way towards addressing the concerns, but I note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

May we have a statement early next week on whether United Kingdom airports and other facilities have been used by the United States to transfer what are described as terror suspects across Europe to be put in various interrogation centres? Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that allegations have been made about torture? If such torture were taking place in centres in parts of Europe, it would be in defiance of both British and international law. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to come to the House early next week to set our minds at rest.

The Foreign Secretary, as part of the European Union presidency, wrote to the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, seeking clarification of the issue and of media reports of so-called CIA terror camps in eastern Europe. I suggest that my hon. Friend await the response before calling for a further statement.

Consultation, or lack of it, seems to be a recurring theme in today's business questions. This morning I met Sir Bob Reid, chairman of Milton Keynes Partnership, the Government quango charged with delivery of the expansion of Milton Keynes. He confirmed that the people of Milton Keynes have only until 15 January to respond to the document. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find time for a proper debate on the Floor of the House? There is a genuine fear throughout the country that expansion of our cities is being forced on us without proper local consultation.

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member feels that. I shall make sure that the appropriate Minister is aware of his concerns about the timetable for that consultation.

May we have an early debate on the no-blame approach to bullying in our schools, as adopted by Liberal Democrat-controlled Bristol city council? Does the Deputy Leader of the House share my view that, although that council may not want to blame or punish bullies, the voters of Bristol will want to blame and punish the council for its irresponsible approach to child protection?

I share my hon. Friend's views that there must be zero tolerance towards bullying, and that firm action must be taken to tackle it. As in my local high schools, that should include interviewing bullies' parents to ensure that they are fully aware of the consequences of such acts. I favour, as the Prime Minister said two weeks ago that he did, the tougher rather than the tender approach on this subject.

May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the imprisonment of British citizens abroad? In Spain in 1998, my constituent Teresa Daniels was convicted of drug smuggling after an outrageous trial in which she thought she was a witness not a defendant. She was released by the Spanish authorities and has now been extradited back to Spain to serve a 10-year prison sentence, more than five years after she was released. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that such a debate would allow the concerns of Fair Trials Abroad to be expressed about a miscarriage of justice, and pressure to be put on the British Foreign Secretary finally to raise the matter with his Spanish counterpart, in the interests of natural justice—a principle that ought to unite all member states of the European Union?

As the hon. Member knows, it is not policy to comment on individual cases that may still be subject to appeals and other proceedings. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary does raise cases of apparent miscarriages of justice, and has made clear to the House in response to other hon. Members' questions his involvement in certain cases at certain stages. This is an important issue and I know that the hon. Member will be working tirelessly on behalf of his constituent, and that the Foreign Secretary and his officials will be following his comments.

The Prime Minister announced the long-awaited energy review at the CBI earlier this week, and I understand that a written statement was placed in the Library. It is unfortunate that an issue of such importance was not brought to the House as an oral statement. Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on the issue in the Chamber in Government time, because it is vital that the House should have an input into the energy review at an early stage, rather than after it, when it is a fait accompli? Nuclear power and its relationship with other aspects of energy policy is a vital issue—one of the most important that the Government have on their agenda.

Any decision taken on the future of nuclear power will, as I said earlier, be the subject of a White Paper, which is likely to be accompanied by a ministerial statement. There will be ample opportunity for a full debate on the Floor of the House.

Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that my constituency continues to be plagued by unauthorised Traveller encampments in the green belt—a matter on which I pressed him during the July Adjournment debate? What has happened to the long-overdue review of Travellers and planning law, and when will district councils be given stronger powers to resist the current abuse?

I shall find out what has happened to the review and ensure that the appropriate Minister writes to the hon. Member.

It was left to a member of the public to notify me of the disgraceful actions of FirstBus in my constituency in unilaterally cutting services and closing a depot. Will my hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time on the conduct of bus companies, and when will the Government consider re-regulating bus companies outside London?

I hope that my hon. Friend will have the chance to put that to Transport Ministers next Tuesday, at Transport questions. Obviously, the provision of local bus services affects the lives of many people and has to be handled sensitively. I hope that the company that he mentioned will note his comments and I am sure that it will want to meet him to discuss his grave concerns on behalf of his constituents.

Following the comments of Pete Wishart on the Black Watch, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the high profile of that issue in my constituency. My grandfather, Hugh MacDonald, served in the Black Watch, and is buried in the military cemetery in Gibraltar, where he died in 1941. I believe that one of the concessions made to the Scottish regiments during the merger process was that they would retain the right to their identity via the right to wear the cap badge at all times. Obviously, in the case of the Black Watch that means the red hackle. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to ask the armed forces Minister to intervene to allow the Black Watch and the other Scottish regiments at least to retain their identity?

No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that undertaking. There has been a long process of discussion on the reorganisation of the regiments, and it was the settled view of the armed forces themselves that this was the way ahead. I am sure that the memories to which my hon. Friend paid tribute will never be lost.

Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain to us why the Armed Forces Bill, which has been long years in the making, has been shoehorned into the parliamentary timetable at a time when no one can possibly prepare properly for Second Reading, whereas the debate on police restructuring, for which everyone is ready, prepared and raring to go, has been withdrawn from the parliamentary timetable? Is it not blindingly obvious that the former should be delayed and the latter reinstated?

No, it is not. The Armed Forces Bill is an important piece of legislation that has to be properly timetabled in this House and the other place, and clearly the suitable time for debating it is in eight or nine days' time. As I said, I hope that the fullest possible information on the Bill is available. I know that the hon. Member, like other hon. Members, will not come cold to this subject.

Tomorrow is carers' rights day. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now timely to have a debate on carers' rights, particularly on issues such as the overlapping benefit rule, which means that carer's premium and carer's allowance cease for carers over pension age? That matter has been raised by many carers in my constituency, and no doubt will be raised by other carers throughout the country tomorrow.

Carers do a fantastic job and we all owe them a debt. I can ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is aware of the issue that my hon. Friend highlighted, and I am sure that he will want to respond.

Two days ago, the national security archive published analysis of recently released documents that show conclusively that the then British Government misled the House and the country about Indonesian atrocities in East Timor in 1975 and further suppressed information about the killing of Australian and British journalists. For example, at Christmas 1975 the then British ambassador to Indonesia sent a cable to London describing Indonesian soldiers as going

"on a rampage of looting and killing".

In the same cable, he went on to say:

"if asked to comment on any stories of atrocities, I suggest we say that we have no information".

May we have an urgent debate on the previous Government's complicity in the cover-up, which will give Members an opportunity to press the current Government to release further documents that will be of assistance in the much-delayed inquest, to take place in Sydney early next year, on one of those British journalists, Brian Peters?

I read the accounts that the hon. Member has shared with us and I found them as disturbing as he did. I cannot offer him the debate in this House that he asks for, but I hope that he manages to secure an Adjournment debate that allows him to air these issues with the Minister responsible and to get an appropriate response.

Given that an increasing number of housing developments built on contaminated land are coming to light, such as that in Littleport, which is in my constituency; given the contradictory views of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the inclusion of soil sampling in the house sellers pack; given the comments of the Leader of the House in response to a recent question from Steve McCabe; and given the now obvious problems in implementing part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on contaminated land development, so that we can clear up this mess?

I can ensure that the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reflected in his response to that question are drawn to Ministers' attention, so that the hon. Member can assist his constituents and we can hopefully ensure that the policy is appropriate to the contaminated site issue.

May we have a debate on the future of the Rhondda Leader, a very fine local weekly newspaper in which I happen to have a regular column? It has a rising circulation, but its problem is that it belongs to Trinity Mirror, which also happens to own nearly every newspaper in south Wales. Further to the point made by Mr. Heath, this is an important issue and we all enjoy a wide diversity of competitive and lively national newspapers. All too often, however, we see monopolistic practices in our local newspaper markets—practices that the Government, through the Competition Commission, should surely investigate.

My hon. Friend can raise his concerns directly with the Competition Commission and I urge him to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes competition matters very seriously.

Will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement to this House on the effect on the criminal justice system and natural justice of leaked reports that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is about to recommend that sentences for muggers be cut from an average of three years in jail to two and a half years?

Those guidelines constitute arrangements made under criminal justice legislation. Previous offenders were in the community with no oversight at all for a substantial part of their sentence. It is important that a more onerous regime for offenders be introduced, so that if they breach licence conditions, they can go back to jail. The problem that the hon. Member highlights, and which was reported, is that young teenagers on a first offence—I am not sure that mugging was the offence; I think that it was snatching of bags that involves no violence—may not, under magistrates' guidelines, get an automatic custodial sentence. That will be a matter for debate in this House and elsewhere.

Last week, a disgraceful incident occurred in which policemen stopped a woman breastfeeding on a bench in a high street. This House will spend a lot of time discussing whether to ban smoking in public places, yet there are already 68 signatures to early-day motion 1046, on breastfeeding in public places.

[That this House recognises the benefits of breastfeeding for babies and welcomes the provisions of the recently introduced Breastfeeding etc. Bill which propose to address some of society's attitudes to breastfeeding; notes that research shows that breast milk is the ideal first food for most babies; regrets that the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe, with just one in five babies receiving breastmilk by the time they are six months old, although the World Health Organisation recommends that babies need nothing other than breastmilk for the first six months of life; is deeply concerned that many mothers report having been harassed for breastfeeding in public while others have stopped breastfeeding early or chosen not to breastfeed as they have anticipated embarrassment or difficulties in feeding their babies whilst in public; supports UNICEF's call for legislation to protect breastfeeding mothers' rights to feed their babies in public areas and the Baby Friendly Initiative; appreciates that social attitudes are slowly changing but that there is a long way to go; and calls for greater understanding and positive attitudes to ensure that breastfeeding is a normal part of everyday life.]

In the light of those points, will the Deputy Leader of the House consider allocating parliamentary time to this really important issue, so that we can permit a perfectly natural activity that has so many beneficial outcomes? I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am not calling for breastfeeding in this House.

I share the hon. Member's views on this issue; indeed, I was in Gracemount, in my constituency, last Friday discussing this very subject with a community health group. I was going to say that it is important that we bring our attitudes to this subject into the 21st century, but of course, breastfeeding is a natural function that has stood us in good stead in the past. I will ensure that the hon. Member's views are made available to my colleagues in the Department of Health.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House agrees that, when a Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, his comments should be factually accurate. That is particularly true of the Prime Minister, but yesterday, he said at Prime Minister's questions that from midnight last night, there will be a maximum wait of six months for operations in the NHS. This morning, I checked with my hospital and 437 people are still waiting more than six months for an operation. Can the Deputy Leader of the House help me by explaining how the Prime Minister might go about correcting what I am sure was a slip of the tongue?

I will certainly ensure that there is an inquiry into why services in the hon. Member's health authority seem to be failing. They are not failing in other health authorities, and there will be a reason for that.

Has the Deputy Leader of the House had the opportunity to look at early-day motion 1120, signed by Members from all parts of the House, which pays tribute to the soccer legend George Best, who died last week?

[That this House mourns the passing of East Belfast and Northern Ireland soccer legend George Best; salutes his unequalled football skills; acknowledges his place at the pinnacle of world class soccer; and tenders to his family its deepest condolences.]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in expressing condolences to the family, and will he urge the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement to the House on the Government's intentions regarding a national stadium, given that a large body of opinion in Northern Ireland feels that it should be named after the soccer legend?

I join the hon. Member in praising the memory of George Best; indeed, I used to watch him play for one of the Edinburgh teams in the 1980s, and he set the stadium alight with his dazzling skills. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is aware of the hon. Member's strong feelings on behalf of his constituents and others on the question of a national stadium.

The Deputy Leader of the House represents a Scottish constituency, which perhaps explains the breathtaking insouciance of, and even the occasional inaccuracies in, his answers concerning a debate on police reform. We are talking about the most important reform of policing in England and Wales in a political generation. No police officer in my area—West Mercia, which covers Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire—supports the Government's proposals. There should have been a debate on the principles underlying the report produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which I challenge, before proceeding to detailed proposals for a merger. The Government could save some shred of honour by having such a debate before Christmas; it would be shameful not to do so.

I have been not just forthright with Members, but accurate in my comments on consideration of that Bill. I note that for all the so-called concern voiced today, not one Opposition day has been devoted to this issue.

The Deputy Leader of the House is doubtless an avid reader of the Local Government Chronicle. If so, he will see that, in today's edition, the Minister of Communities and Local Government has announced a White Paper on local government, to be published in the middle of next year, that includes proposals for structural reform. I welcome that announcement, but can the Deputy Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the relationship between that White Paper and the Lyons review, in which the Government can explain why it has taken so long to give that review any political direction?

The White Paper coming before the House next year covers a distinct policy area and, once it is published, I am sure that there will be an opportunity to debate it. Before its publication, there will be an opportunity for the hon. Member and his Liberal Democrat colleagues to provide their input.

May I revert to the amalgamation of police forces? The Deputy Leader of the House will know that the proposals are widely resisted in the east midlands, especially in Lincolnshire. He has spoken repeatedly of consultations, but does he not understand that, in a representative democracy, this House, speaking collectively, should be involved in that process? That means that there should be a substantive and votable motion before Christmas.

No, it does not. It means that there should be a debate, and one has been promised. That debate should take place at the end of the initial consultation period, which I understand is 23 December.