Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

The business for next week will be as follows.

Monday 3 March—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [9th Allotted Day].

Tuesday 4 March—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [10th Allotted Day], so far not completed on 3 March.

Wednesday 5 March—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill [11th Allotted Day] covering Clause 8, the schedule, new clauses and new schedules.

Thursday 6 March—A debate on international women's day.

Friday 7 March—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 March will include the following.

Monday 10 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on Northern Rock and banking reform, followed by a debate on London Underground and the public-private partnership agreements.

At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Tuesday 11 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.

Wednesday 12 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 13 March—Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 14 March—Private Members' Bills.

The House may wish to be reminded that we will rise for the bank holiday at the end of business on Thursday 20 March and return on Tuesday 25 March.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 and 27 March will be as follows.

Thursday 20 March—A debate on creative industries.

Thursday 27 March—A debate on the report from the Quadripartite Committee on strategic export controls: 2007 Review.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.

May we have a debate in Government time on spinal injuries units in the national health service? Last Friday my constituent Baroness de Knayth, who was disabled as a result of spinal injuries and who was a hard-working and much-respected Cross-Bench peer, was taken ill. When she arrived at her local acute hospital, Wexham Park, the hospital did not even have the right sort of bed for a person with her disabilities. The spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital refused to admit her. On Sunday morning, she died. I am sure that the whole House will want to send condolences to her family and friends.

The House was promised line-by-line consideration of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, but so far we have had a daily average of less than two and a half hours of detailed debate on amendments. That has meant that important amendments concerning such matters as asylum and immigration, borders and visas, defence, and climate change have not been discussed at all. May I repeat the call made last week by my hon. Friend Mr. Vara, the Shadow Deputy Leader of the House, for an extra day of debate on defence matters?

During Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, the Prime Minister said

"this is an amending treaty and not a constitutional treaty. We have said that there is no necessity now to have a referendum."—[ Hansard, 27 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1084.]

I have here an internal document that was sent to Labour Members by the Minister for Europe, which highlights the question

"Do you expect your constituents to vote for you at the next election knowing that you will have broken an important manifesto pledge".

May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on why he is forcing Labour MPs to break their promise to the British people?

Having pushed through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill and introduced 85 new clauses and 11 new schedules to the Bill after Second Reading, the Government have since removed 52 clauses and nine schedules, including proposals on prostitution. We know that the Government are desperate to get the Bill through before the threatened prison officers' strike, but may we have a statement from the right hon. Lady on the appalling handling of the Bill?

May we have a debate on Cabinet responsibility? The Cabinet, which includes the Justice Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary, has agreed to close 2,500 post offices. Those very same Ministers are campaigning against Post Office closures in their constituencies. As a Member with six post offices in my Constituency under threat of closure, I oppose the closure programme. Where does the Leader of the House stand?

Talking about disunity in the Cabinet, was it death sentences for those who wanted to flee, torture and prison sentences for dissidents, gags for the press or jail for homosexuals that made the Leader of the House support Castro? Given this list of atrocities, and the fact that the Prime Minister obviously does not agree with her, will she tell the House if she still believes that Castro was a hero of the left?

The Government have broken their pledge to the British people, shown utter contempt for the procedures of the House and double standards at the very top. New Prime Minister, same old ways; nothing has changed.

I would like to join the right hon. Lady in expressing my condolences to the family of Baroness Darcy de Knayth and I will refer her serious points about the late noble Baroness's care to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to her.

I remind the right hon. Lady and the House that we have had more debate in Committee on the European Union (Amendment) Bill than we had on the Nice and Amsterdam treaties and the Single European Act put together. The procedure motion had a considerable amount of debate and it is for the House to go through the Bill, as it has done, day in, day out. We are three quarters of the way through the Committee stage, on day eight. There will be further debate, as the House will have heard, next week. It is for hon. Members to decide whether they want to table an amendment on a referendum and it is for the Speaker to choose which amendments to select. It is then for the House to decide.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. She is right; we want clarity about the legal position in relation to strikes in the Prison Service. That has put a time scale on the Bill and added to the consideration of how it is handled not just in this place, but in the House of Lords. She mentioned the withdrawal of the two clauses on prostitution. She will know that we are engaging in what will be a six-month review into how we deal with the demand side of prostitution. It will not be a bad thing to look at how we deal with prostitution of a piece when we have considered the review of how we tackle the demand side of human trafficking.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Post Office closures, and she will no doubt have heard some of the discussions during topical questions to Ministers from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. She will know that there are about 14,000 post offices in this country and that there has been a drop in use of post offices because, for example, of the loss of the contract for television licences, because more people are choosing to get their tax discs on line and because more people are opting to have pensions or other benefit payments made by direct debit. Fewer people are using the post office and, therefore, there has been an increase in the taxpayer subsidy. She knows that the framework has been agreed and that up to 2,500 of the 14,000 post offices will be closed. There is the question of which post offices will be closed, and, as my hon. Friends said during Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform questions, there will be a consultation on which post offices are put forward for closure. It is important that that consultation is realistic and that it examines the individual circumstances of each post office, including the deprivation of the local area, transport to nearby post offices and the usage of the post office in question.

The Conservatives have made yet another unfunded public spending pledge. They say that they do not want any post offices to close, but we have put in a great deal of public subsidy from the taxpayer, whereas their policy is to put in no public subsidy. I will add unfunded commitments on post offices, which I will report to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the unfunded commitments on defence and health. Those unfunded promises are matched only by the promised tax cuts, and they do not add up.

Will the Leader of the House comment on supermarkets and others that set the price of a can of lager at 22p, which is at cost, close to cost or below cost? Will she ensure that the Office of Fair Trading allows supermarkets and others to agree a minimum price for such products, which is part of the necessary action to tackle the scourge of alcoholism in this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend's point. The issue was the subject of a topical debate before Christmas. Since then, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have conducted further work, and I will bring my hon. Friend's point to their attention.

The Leader of the House has rightly announced that we have had eight days' debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill and that we will have four more days' debate in the next two weeks. Will she arrange a debate on how an amendment supported by a party that was backed by nearly one quarter of the British electorate at the previous election and by one third as many Members as the other major Opposition party cannot be selected after eight days of debate, because of the rules of the House of Commons? Will she allow us to debate the processes that prevent issues that the public want to be debated from being discussed?

Following the welcome announcement by the Members Estimate Committee of the speeding up of the process of examining Members' allowances—a decision will be taken in July rather than in the autumn—will she make a statement confirming that any proposals will be subject to external approbation to ensure that they are not solely concocted within this place? Will she ensure that any such proposals have the support of independent and reputable bodies outside this place?

On Members of the House of Lords, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Bill proposed by Mr. Prentice and a similar Bill that was introduced yesterday in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Lord Oakeshott are given the parliamentary time that will allow us to end the practice of Members of the House of Lords in the UK Parliament taking seats when they do not pay tax in the United Kingdom, which is an absolute disgrace?

The Leader of the House has announced that we will quite properly have a debate on international women's day next week, and we are quite properly having the St. David's day debate today. There has still been no word on having a Commonwealth day debate—Commonwealth day is a week on Monday. Given the important Commonwealth issues, not least the new presidency in Cyprus, which raises the hope of new negotiations for peace, can we have a Commonwealth debate, for which some of us have been asking for a long time?

Will the right hon. and learned Lady talk to the Home Secretary not about post offices, although she might do that, but about finding time for debates on important Home Office matters that are currently not listed to come before the House? The immigration changes that are due to come into force at the end of this month will make it very difficult for many long-term husbands, wives, fiancés and partners to come and settle in this country with their lawful other half. Will she also give us the opportunity to debate in this place the citizenship green paper, which many Commonwealth citizens are very angry about because they feel the ancestry issue and their commitment to this country is being disregarded, and to debate Home Office policy, which is still willing on occasions to send gay people back to countries such as Iran where they could be persecuted, and even executed?

Finally, given that we now know that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence does not have information on drug trials that show that certain drugs are no good for their purpose, such as dealing with depression, may we get that subject on the Order Paper so we can expose the pharmaceutical industry's unwillingness to reveal that patients often spend a lot of money on drugs that are probably of no clinical use at all?

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the consideration of amendments to the European Union (Amendment) Bill. As he knows, the tabling of amendments is a matter for individual Members and the selection of amendments is a matter for the Speaker. I do not want to trespass on the Speaker's territory, but I would assume that tabling an amendment that is about our leaving the European Union to a Bill that is about the Lisbon treaty would not be in order, as it would not be within the Bill's scope. However, that is a matter for the Speaker, not me, to decide.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Members' allowances. As he knows, before the case of Derek Conway arose on a report from the Standards and Privileges Committee, we debated on 24 January not only Members' pay but reimbursement for our expenditure on activities as Members. The House decided unanimously to refer the question of Members' allowances to the Members Estimate Committee, which the Speaker chairs. Under its remit from the House, that Committee has been taking forward its review and on 25 February published how it will make progress. The Committee has invited all Members who wish to do so to give evidence, and it states that it will consider not just a root-and-branch review of the structure of allowances and reimbursements, but how there can be proper checks and auditing of claims made under the new process. That is important work, and the Members Estimate Committee is getting on with it. The review will also deal with the question whether there may be an additional role for the Committee on Standards in Public Life or any external auditing.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether consideration could be given to having a debate on Commonwealth day. He has made that point a number of times before, and I shall consider whether there should be a topical debate.

The hon. Gentleman raised Home Office matters in relation to immigration and the citizenship green paper. Those are important issues for the public as well as this House, but I assure him that the Home Office does not send people back to where they would be tortured or executed, and if there were any question of that happening the courts would rightly step in and stop it.

On drugs trials and NICE, we need to be sure that it has all the necessary published and unpublished material so that it can make its decisions on the basis of the fullest possible information.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the House to debate the regulation of paediatricians? Following the striking off of Professor Southall last year in respect of an incident, witnessed by a third party, that occurred some years ago, paediatricians are very reluctant to involve themselves in interviews with parents or to undertake examinations, because they could be subject to false allegations even when such an examination or interview has been witnessed by a third party. There is great reluctance and fear among paediatricians. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the matter?

The question of there being enough properly trained paediatricians is a matter of concern for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I shall bring my hon. Friend's point to their attention.

Why did the Leader of the House fail to answer the question about her comments on Fidel Castro? Does she not understand that as Leader of the House, deputy leader and chairman of the Labour party and deputy to the Prime Minister, her backing a homophobic dictator who has abused human rights in his country is no laughing matter?

I also said in that interview that it was time for Cuba to move on, and I look forward to its moving on to democracy and full human rights.

May I thank the Leader of the House for making time for the annual St. David's day debate this afternoon? I am looking forward to it. Tomorrow, the national minimum wage outreach campaign bus comes to Pontprennau in my Constituency to spread the news of the minimum wage and employment rights. When can we have a debate to celebrate the success of the minimum wage and the benefit it has brought, particularly to low paid women workers?

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which has reminded the whole House of the importance of the national minimum wage, particularly for low paid women workers. It gives me the opportunity, in a non-partisan way, to remind the House and everyone who has benefited from the minimum wage that the Conservative party voted against it, saying that it would undermine the employment of women. In that respect, as in so many others, Labour Members were right on the economy and social justice, and the Conservatives were wrong.

The Leader of the House will be aware that elections are imminent in Zimbabwe. Surely she agrees that it is crucial that they should be properly and fully monitored to ensure that Mr. Mugabe cannot yet again claim victory when he has lost an election. Will she allow a debate in Government time—if not then, will she allow a topical debate, although I know that she will claim that such debates are in Government time—so that the matter can be discussed and appropriate arrangements made to help the people of Zimbabwe to get a Government who will help that country and help them?

The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point, because it is important that this country works with other countries and, in particular, with the European Union, to monitor those elections, and I take it as a proposal for a topical debate.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has noticed that, yet again, six Bills listed on the Order Paper are identical to my private Member's Bill, the Pedlars (Street Trading Regulations) Bill, which comes before the House next Friday. The Chairman of Ways and Means has written to the Government asking them to facilitate the legislation by supporting my Bill, which is supported by the Opposition parties. Will she have a word during the week with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, my hon. Friend Mr. Thomas, to see whether he will facilitate getting the Bill into Committee on Friday, so that we can unblock all this legislation? I am told that up to 50 Bills are likely to come before the House in the not-too-distant future.

I will bring my hon. Friend's points to the attention of the relevant Minister.

I call Angus Robertson.

That will be myself. [Hon. Members: "You will do.] I have been called worse than Angus Robertson—but not much worse.

Would the Leader of the House make time available for an urgent statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's rapidly deteriorating industrial relations? The right hon. and learned Lady will doubtless be aware that its workers are anticipating strike action for the first time. The management claim to have contingency measures in place should that happen. Many of us in coastal and island communities do not have a great deal of confidence in those measures, and this matter needs to be discussed in this House before it becomes time critical.

We all hope that the contingency arrangements will not have to be put into effect because we hope that any disputes will have been settled before they reach that point. I join the hon. Gentleman in placing on record the importance of the MCA's work, and I pay tribute to those who work in it.

My right hon. and learned Friend will recall the chaos on the railways over Christmas, about which I tabled an early-day motion in January.

Yesterday, the Office of Rail Regulation published a report that was highly critical of Network Rail and the ongoing railway track work problems. Can we have a full debate on the Floor of the House on the whole railway industry so that we can compare public and private ownership of the railways and, in particular, examine track work costs and the levels of public subsidy and fares?

That matter could be the subject of a debate—perhaps my hon. Friend could propose it as the subject of an Adjournment Debate. He makes an important underlying point. Since we came into Government, more passengers and more freight have been carried on the railways, and more trains are running on time. The ORR is right to place strongly and publicly on record the unacceptability of Network Rail's track repairs in that respect, and I hope that we will see a prompt improvement.

Could the Leader of the House tell us when we will have the opportunity to debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill? Will she assure the House that the conscience clauses will not be subject to a Government Whip?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords following its introduction there, and that votes were whipped on both sides. [Hon. Members: "Not true."] Well, if I am wrong about that and if I am reminded in what respect I am wrong, I shall correct myself at some point. The Bill will come before this House in due course. It is a Government Bill, but the question of how different clauses are dealt with will be decided in due course.

Can we have an early debate on prostituted women so that we can get a sense of the feel of the House ahead of the review that the Leader of the House mentioned? Can she confirm that the rate of murder among prostituted women in this country is 18 times that among other women? Can she also confirm that in places where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada, or semi-legal, such as Germany, the rates of violence towards or abuse of prostituted women is far higher than elsewhere? Does she agree that taking DNA samples from men who go to massage parlours and brothels would be a way of putting men in front of their responsibilities, because almost all the horrible murders of prostituted women are carried out by men who have frequented them beforehand?

My right hon. Friend raises a number of very important points, and I hope that he will raise them more fully in the international women's day debate. One of the Government's priorities is to end violence against women, and women who have got into prostitution face very high levels of violence and intimidation. On the question of DNA samples, it is right that I have the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the fact that not only murders but many rapes can be solved by using DNA evidence that is collected and stored, whereas previously we would not have been able to bring offenders to justice.

The Leader of the House may recall that last July, she caused uproar in the Chamber when she unilaterally and spontaneously suspended the Standing Orders of the House so that the Government, not the House, could put somebody on a Select Committee. Will she find time for a debate on item 47 of the future business, in my name and that of my hon. Friend Sir Patrick Cormack, which would prevent any recurrence of that abuse?

I do not accept that I have caused uproar or done anything that has broken the rules of this House or exceeded my rights, nor would it have been accepted by the House authorities if I had done so. Everything that I have done has been perfectly in order and within the procedures.

Next week, hundreds of thousands of parents will receive notification of the school to which their child has been allocated for the year beginning in September. Given that it will be the first year under the new code of practice on school admissions, and in view of the important statements made by the schools adjudicator this week about how the system could be improved, may we have a debate on the issue to evaluate the effect of the new code of practice on school admissions?

Ministers in the Department for Children, Schools and Families are evaluating closely how the new law and processes are working. The overwhelming Majority of parents get their first choice of school, but we want to ensure that the system operates fairly and that everybody is in an equal position to get the choice of school that they want for their children. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

The post offices in Leopold road, Kingston road, Coombe lane and Wimbledon village in my Constituency are threatened with closure. In many cases, the consultation is believed to be a sham and the rationale being put forward is simply wrong. May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her intemperate response to my right hon. Friend Mrs. May? After all, given the dithering of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the exchequer, which cost the British taxpayer £50 billion, to chide us for extra money seems a little rich. Will she reconsider her answer and give us time, in Government time, to debate this matter, which is important for local communities?

The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has recently given evidence to the Select Committee on the progress of the Post Office closure consultation programme. No doubt the Committee will produce its report in due course. Nobody would defend a consultation if it were not carried out properly, in good faith, openly and according to objective criteria. That is how we expect the consultation to be carried out, and we are entitled to know that it is.

A few days ago, I tabled early-day motion 1014.

[ That this House congratulates all those who have expended huge efforts over a decade to return an Avro Vulcan aeroplane to public display; believes that this is an icon of British heritage and an invaluable asset in assisting today's students to better understand British science, engineering and history; recalls that it remains the only project of its kind to have received support from the Heritage Lottery Fund and salutes the record-breaking first flight in its present restored form in October 2007; is concerned to learn that, because the final tranche of funding and sponsorship has yet to be secured, this fully flight-ready aircraft presently languishes in a Leicestershire hangar, unable to appear at UK airshows in 2008; and believes that urgent advice and assistance should be provided to the project team by the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to surmount the final funding hurdle of £150,000 before the end of March 2008 and thus to carry on the vital educational programme built around this incredible machine. ]

It draws attention to the fact that languishing in a Leicestershire hangar is a magnificent, fully flight-ready Avro Vulcan, which has been restored over 10 years by an active team of people. Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the early-day motion to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, to see how they can help to bridge the final gap of £150,000—we have had some Heritage Lottery Fund funding—by the end of next month, so that we can put on full public display this magnificent symbol of British science, engineering and post-war history? We are so close, but we need some central support.

My hon. Friend poses a challenge. That is important work, and it seems that we are right near the end of it and want to ensure that we take the final steps so that that important Vulcan can be on public display.

Simon Hughes alluded to the recent publication of the amalgamation of 47 published and unpublished clinical trials on antidepressants. The Leader of the House and other hon. Members will be aware of the concerns that their constituents have about some of those drugs, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. May I suggest that that would be a useful subject for a topical debate, so that we can probe the Government's attitude to SSRIs and in particular how the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—as opposed to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—works in relation to the approval of those drugs?

I do not think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman any further than to say that I will refer his point to Ministers in the Department of Health. We want open, transparent and scientifically based assessments of and decisions on medicines that are available, to ensure that they do what they are supposed to do, that they are safe and that there is a fair deal between the taxpayer and the pharmaceutical companies. I shall raise the point with Ministers in the Department of Health.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House how much taxpayers' money has been used to refurbish the facilities in the Press Gallery, particularly the heavily subsidised bar? I have scanned the newspapers to try to get some information, but as yet I have been unsuccessful.

I undertake to find out the information about the cost of the refurbishment of the Press Gallery and I shall arrange for the appropriate House official to write to my hon. Friend and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

To add to my earlier answer on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Amendment on abortion in the House of Lords was of course subject to a free vote. Should there be any amendment on abortion in this House, of course and as is always the case, it would be subject to a free vote.

What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and to know that we have as our Speaker somebody who is simply not prepared to be pushed around, either by snobs or by bullies.

May we have a debate on the continuing crisis in Darfur? Given that the numbers of dead, dying and destitute are increasing exponentially every day, is it not time that we had a debate in Government time, on the Floor of the House, to try to establish whether, and if so when, we will get the imposition of the no-fly zone first discussed more than three years ago and the necessary full-scale African Union-United Nations troop deployment to the region? That combination alone offers hope to the people of Darfur that they might enjoy the freedom, peace and justice that we have so long enjoyed and they have so long been denied.

These are issues of great concern to Ministers in both the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about the African Union force and the no-fly zone, and of course it is important that pressure be kept up on the Sudanese Government.

May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about you, Mr. Speaker, and to remind the House of what we all know—that we, as Members of Parliament, choose the Speaker of this House? It is our choice, not that of the newspapers.

When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill comes to this House, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a Committee of the Whole House to consider significant issues relating to respect for human life? Will she follow the precedent of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990? On 23 and 24 April that year, the whole House considered embryo research and abortion.

I will consider the hon. Gentleman's points about how we should handle the Bill at Committee stage. We will make an announcement in due course, following consultations across the House.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all parts of the United Kingdom will welcome today's debate on Welsh affairs, coinciding with St. David's day. Will the Leader of the House make similar provision for a debate on 23 April, to coincide with St. George's day, so that we can debate affairs relating to England?

I will consider that proposal.

Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the genuine concerns of the south Asian community about two issues: the new immigration Laws that are coming in, and the increasing burden on south Asian businesses, which affect a major part of the UK economy?

I will bring those points to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Home Office. I think we all want to be sure that those who migrate to this country continue to play their important part in local communities and in our economy, our services and the community life of this country, and that they can be joined by relatives. We also need to make absolutely sure that we have fair and firm rules to ensure that those who come here do so within the rules, and that those outside the rules are deported.

Would the Leader of the House, who I think has general overall responsibility for the recording and broadcasting of proceedings in the House, give us a debate on the BBC's use of proceedings, particularly those on the important questions relating to the Lisbon treaty? We pay some £3 billion a year in the taxpayers' licence fee, and there are people outside this place who, apart from the parliamentary channel, simply do not hear what goes on here, irrespective of the differences between the political parties. The bottom line is that this is a matter of public policy under the charter. There was nothing on "Yesterday in Parliament" today with regard to the important issues of the supremacy of Parliament that were debated yesterday. That means effectively that people outside do not know what is going on in the House with respect to the vital matter of who governs them and how. Would the—

Order. I get the impression that the Leader of the House will be able to answer that question.

I think that editorial decisions about news coverage of what goes on in the House are a matter for the broadcasters themselves. I think that we would all like more coverage of the House so that people outside can understand the work going on in Parliament, but in that respect, it is important for us to ensure that we debate things in a way that is not arcane and technical, but which not only contributes to the discussion but is understandable outside the House. I, for one, would suggest that we ban the word "passerelles", but that is a personal view.

We must recognise that although these issues are important and it is right that we should be spending 12 days in Committee of the Whole House discussing the European Union (Amendment) Bill, there are a lot of other issues that people outside the House would like to see us debating, such as public services, the economy and other things that they know affect their lives directly.

May we have an urgent debate on collective responsibility in government? It cannot be right that the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I do not wish to embarrass the Welsh Secretary, who is sitting on the front bench—while campaigning in their own constituencies against the closure of post offices, are fully signed up to closing post offices in constituencies such as mine. If Ministers feel so angry about their own policy, they should resign.

As I understand it, there is no Constituency where it is proposed that every single Post Office should be closed. The notion suggested by the hon. Gentleman that some Members will find all their post offices closed, while others will find that all theirs have been kept open, is not correct. If there is a consultation about which post offices will close and which will stay open, it cannot be right to say that Members of Parliament who are also Ministers cannot represent the views of their constituents on how post offices in their constituencies are configured. Hon. Members can well understand that it is perfectly possible to agree to a situation where, of some 14,000 post offices, about 2,000 will be closed, and that there must be a consultation about which should be closed. To ban Members of Parliament from being involved in that consultation because they are Ministers would be completely wrong.

Taking the Leader of the House back to her announcements about the European Union (Amendment) Bill and its progress through the House, I mention in passing that, as she will remember, the House did indeed vote on whether we would have an in/out referendum during the Queen's Speech debate, and the motion was, of course, resoundingly defeated. On the question raised by my right hon. Friend Mrs. May about debating defence matters, the Leader of the House will remember that the relevant parts of the Bill were not even reached in debate. I think that there is assent throughout the House that that subject is so important that if she could find some extra time specifically to debate defence, it would be very welcome.

The way in which we are dealing with Committee consideration was the subject of a procedure motion, which was itself the subject of debate. There is also the question of how Members deal with it; those who spend a lot of time making lengthy speeches early in debates will crowd out others later on. We do not want to be too prescriptive. We were not too prescriptive in the programme motion and we have shown ourselves, as we promised, to be flexible about the balance between four and a half hours and one and a half hours, sometimes making it three hours and three hours.

We have tried to be flexible. We have given a great deal of time. We are eight days in; we have had eight full days of parliamentary debate on the Bill, and that is just in Committee. It is a very long debate. Second Reading was one day, the business motion was one day and Committee stage and Third Reading have 12 days. I think that we have had a great deal of debate. The suggestion that we are somehow trying to stifle debate makes me wonder whether colleagues have been in the Chamber and listening to the business statement. The debate has been extensive—some would say exhaustive. I am not saying that the Lisbon treaty is not important. Of course it is important, but I think that the House has had ample time to debate it.

May I ask the Leader of the House what has happened to topical debates? We do not seem to have so many of them, and when we do, the subject matter bears a remarkable similarity to that of whatever speech the Prime Minister may have made earlier in the week. I suggest, in addition to my oft-repeated request for a debate on Post Office closures, that we have a debate on the human rights record of Fidel Castro.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have made an announcement that, after the introduction of topical debates in Government time, following the proposals of the Modernisation Committee, I undertook to review how the topical debates were operating. We have not had any for a number of weeks, for one reason or another: for example, pressure on Government business time by Northern Rock and the fact that I took a view on the need to discuss Members' pay at length. Due to a number of issues, we have felt that Thursday business needed to be devoted to something other than topical debates. I point out, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point that the topical debate subject always seems to be the Prime Minister's latest speech, that the last topical debate was on a subject proposed by the Shadow Leader of the House.

May we have a debate in Government time on the third runway at Heathrow? Considerable doubts are being expressed about the environmental assessment that has taken place and the role of BAA. Heathrow plays a crucial role in the life of the national economy, so it is extremely important that the issue should be debated fully and frankly.

I agree that that is a very important issue. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have undertaken a consultation exercise, which has just closed. There were many thousands of responses, which are being considered by the Government, and the decision will be reported in due course.

If the Government are serious about combating climate change, may we have a joint statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on climate change and retail premises that leave their doors open all day, blasting hot air into the atmosphere? My constituent, Mr. Mike Southwell of Weston by Welland, wrote to me this week to say that on a visit to his local high street he

"counted TEN shops with their doors wide open to the skies, and large fan heaters blowing hot air down in an effort to keep the stores warm. On going into" one of the shops

"and suggesting that the door should be closed, the shop assistant said that the management insisted the doors be open at all times to increase footfall."

What will the Government do to resolve that dilemma?

I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers in DEFRA and DBERR to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. The practice sounds wasteful, and it is obviously costly and not good for the environment. We want our retail businesses to thrive, but we also need to save the planet.

rose—

I do not mean to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but he did not come into the Chamber for the business statement. Hon. Members must hear the statement to ask a supplementary question.

Yesterday, we heard of the new drugs strategy, but we have not had a debate on the old drug strategy that was introduced with the full support of every party—

I must stop the hon. Gentlemen. There are yellow cards and red cards being shown today. He left the Chamber and then came back in.

I heard the statement.

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman left and came back in, and that is not on. It cannot be done. He should try again next week; he is sure to catch my eye then.