12.22 pm

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:

Monday 2 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Political Parties and Elections Bill.

Tuesday 3 March—Motion to approve the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2009, followed by remaining stages of the Corporation Tax Bill, followed by motions to nominate Members of regional Select Committees, followed by motions relating to the Committee on Members' Allowances.

Wednesday 4 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.

Thursday 5 March—General debate on supporting women and families through the downturn and building a strong and fair economy for the future.

Friday 6 March—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 March will include:

Monday 9 March—Estimates (2nd allocated day). There will be a debate on the work of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in the current economic situation, followed by a debate on railways. Details will be given in the Official Report .

[T he details are as follows: Delivering a sustainable railway: a 30-year strategy for the railways? (10th Report of Session 2007-08 from the Transport Committee, HC 219; Government response— e ighth special report, HC 1105); and Departmental Annual Report and scrutiny of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (14th report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, HC 1116; and Government response Cm 7559) and further Oral Evidence of 16 December, 14 January and 23 February. ]

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

Tuesday 10 March—Opposition Day (7th allocated day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Wednesday 11 March—Remaining stages of the Business Rate Supplements Bill, followed by a motion to consider the Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amount of Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2009.

Thursday 12 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to take account of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: the 30th, the 36th, the 39th to the 41st, the 43rd to the 49th and the 51st and the 57th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2007-08, and of the Treasury Minutes on these Reports (Cm 7493, 7522 and 7545).]

Friday 13 March—Private Members' Bills.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. May I, through her, thank the Prime Minister, and indeed all Members of the House, for their sympathy and the generosity of spirit that they showed yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, following the death of his son? In that spirit, I hope that the right hon. and learned Lady will today allow me to suspend the usual differences that we express each week across the Dispatch Box. This week, we will keep it very straightforward.

We welcome the debate that is to take place on Monday 9 March, which will allow us to discuss the accountability of Ministers in the Lords to this House. I have raised the issue before, and I am grateful to the Select Committee that is giving over its estimates day so that we can discuss that very important issue.

Yesterday, it was reported that Alma Harding, a 65-year-old retired postmistress, had been given a criminal record for clipping an offensive and rowdy teenager round the head with the papers from her parish council meeting. Many people have first-hand experience of the random, passing abuse that can be dished out by unruly children, and the corrosive impact that it can have on communities, and they will be angry and astonished that the case made it to court at all. May we have a debate on fairness in the policing and legal system, so that the House has an opportunity to make its own judgment on what we think its priorities should be—and then make proper law that fits our view?

May we also have a debate on teenage pregnancy? Today's statistics are a depressing reminder that the case of 13-year-old Alfie Patten, whose example should concern us all, is not an isolated incident. We are obviously failing our children when they are raising children themselves. Is it not right that people should be taught about right and wrong, and that bringing up a child carries with it enormous responsibilities?

Earlier this week, there were rather confusing briefings in the press about whether the Government were about to tear up their commitments on equalities legislation and on expanding maternity leave. I know that the right hon. and learned Lady takes a keen interest in those matters, so may I invite her to offer the House a statement to clarify the Government's position, and to announce any imminent changes that are intended?

May we also have a debate on the plight of businesses in our British ports and harbours? Hon. Members will be aware of the Valuation Office Agency's plans to levy retrospective charges for business rates on about 700 companies operating in British ports, and the devastating impact that that will have at a time of deep recession. That is a cross-party issue, and many Labour Members have been particularly active in trying to prevent the widespread redundancies that will inevitably follow from that punitive tax. It is surely in everyone's interests to debate the issue properly, and to make the point that imposing such retrospective detriment is unfair and unprincipled.

Finally, and particularly in light of the statement that we have just heard, may I once again call for a full and thorough debate on the economy in Government time? It has been yet another week of dire economic news. The scale of the problem is beginning to beggar belief. There has been a change of policy on Northern Rock, without any explanation of where the £12 billion-worth of new lending will come from. There are reports that the taxpayer will be underwriting debts to the tune of over a quarter of a trillion pounds; we have just heard some further details of that. There was also an announcement by RBS of the biggest losses in corporate history in this country. In the week when we learned that the Government are once again printing money, is it not apparent that there is a real national need to debate the crisis properly on the Floor of the House?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time was handled yesterday and the suspension of questions. I think that all Members appreciated the opportunity to show their sympathy and support for the Leader of the Opposition and his family.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the case of Alma Harding. We have all seen press reports. I remind the hon. Gentleman that although we set the law in this House, our constitution requires the law to be applied by the courts and prosecutions to be undertaken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. I am sure that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Opposition as a whole would want us, as elected Members, to substitute our judgment— [Interruption.] Would hon. Members allow me to finish the point? We must not substitute our judgment for the independent decision-making process in the Crown Prosecution Service.

Although the court saw fit to give Mrs. Harding an absolute discharge, according to press reports, it did not take the option that it could have taken and require the CPS to pay her costs. Let me simply say that it is important that we all recognise that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of magistrates and justices of the peace. They hear the evidence, they must decide on the penalty, and they must decide the question of guilt or innocence. That is the appropriate position, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try to make this House a substitute for a court of law.

We are all anxious to ensure that unwanted, unplanned teenage pregnancies are reduced to as low a level as possible. That is why, in 1999, we introduced a reduction target. Over the 10 years that the strategy has been in effect, there has been a 10 per cent. drop in the rate of teenage pregnancy. I think that, given that no progress was made in the preceding two decades, this has been a decade of welcome progress. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised, that progress has been uneven around the country. According to a report published today by the Office for National Statistics, local authorities that employ a focused strategy involving everyone working together have made considerable progress, while others have lagged behind. That is why the rate of progress has dipped and now requires further momentum.

Let me give two examples, from the hon. Gentleman's Constituency and mine. In Rutland, there has been a 7 per cent. increase in the teenage pregnancy rate over the past 10 years. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman works with all the authorities in his constituency—health authorities, local authorities and schools—to back up the strategy that he clearly supports. In the London borough of Southwark, which I represent, there has been a 12 per cent. reduction in the—yes, much too high—rate of teenage pregnancy. We must do what we can in all parts of the country, which means giving information to parents on how to talk to their children about these issues, ensuring that there is good sex education in schools, and ensuring that there is good advice on, and accessibility to, contraception.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the equality legislation, and about maternity pay and leave. As I have said, there will be a debate next week on supporting women and families through the downturn, which will give Members an opportunity to speak and hear more about the role of equality legislation in ensuring fairness and equality for women in the world of work. We will press forward with that legislation.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, since 1997, we have increased maternity leave from 40 to 52 weeks. We do not regard that as a burden on business; we regard it as support for families. We have doubled maternity pay from £55 to £117 a week. We do not regard that as a drain on the public purse or a burden on the taxpayer; we regard it as good support for families. Any further measures will be a subject for the Budget, which will be announced on 22 April.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a further debate on the economy. He will have heard me announce that there would be an estimates day debate on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in the current economic situation, which will give Members an opportunity to raise issues of concern such as lending to small businesses, securing jobs, helping those who do face redundancy, and ensuring that we do all that we can to support the housing market.

The hon. Gentleman asked about port rates. As he will know, a statutory instrument allows businesses more time to pay backdated obligations.

I have been contacted by about 25 constituents over the past few weeks about the Autism Bill, and have met a number of them to discuss the Bill and the problems of autism. I have heard some heartrending stories about the difficulties experienced, by adults in particular, in gaining access to services and support. My constituents want those services and support, along with proper planning of services, to meet the needs of children and especially adults with autism.

A report on the website of the National Autistic Society, which I looked at this morning, states that the society is celebrating a "victory" and that the measures announced by the Government this week

"directly respond to the Bill".

A spokesman for the society says

"we have achieved our major political goals."

I am not entirely sure what the Bill will achieve that has not already been achieved. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the Government's absolute commitment to delivering those improvements and to seeing them through to the end?

I can confirm that the measures taken in the autism strategy go further than those proposed in the Bill. I pay tribute to the National Autistic Society for its proposals. We are developing the strategy and consulting on it. We undertake to go as far as we possibly can and to work closely with the society.

In response to the comments of Alan Duncan about yesterday's events, let me simply say that I felt that the Prime Minister, Mr. Hague and my hon. Friend Dr. Cable expressed the House's sentiments very well. Any further words on the subject from me would be superfluous.

We have just heard a very important statement by the Chancellor of the exchequer on economic affairs. At the same time, the Treasury Committee was hearing evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that that was not good timing and not the best use of the House's time? Of course the statement was important and of course it needed to be made today, but the order of statements prevented Members—including the Chairman of the Treasury Committee—from being present in the Chamber to hear the statement. That strikes me as unfortunate; perhaps the Leader of the House will look into it.

While I am talking about financial affairs, I note that 9 March is to be an estimates day. Of course, the one subject that we will not debate on that day is that of the estimates that we will be asked to agree at the end of the session. On 10 March, we are to have what are misleadingly described as "proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill". Precisely what we will not have are proceedings on that Bill, because under Standing Order No. 56 we cannot debate, amend or even vote on it. That, in my view, underlines the failure of the House to undertake properly its scrutiny role in relation to expenditure. We have escalating spending, escalating debt and an escalating contingent liability. Never has so much been spent by a Government with so little scrutiny. There is an urgent need for us to reform our scrutiny of expenditure, as well as the tax arrangements, in the current Parliament.

Experience shows that sadly, during a recession there is normally a concomitant increase in crimes such as burglary and theft. May we have a debate on police numbers? The Home Secretary has said that the overall number of police in the country has risen marginally, and she is correct. However, earlier this week, the chief constable of Gloucestershire said that in 19 police forces officer numbers had fallen. My own force area, Avon and Somerset, has lost 73 officers in the past year.

When I was chairman of Avon and Somerset police authority, under a Conservative Home Secretary, I asked for more officers every year and was told that we could not have them. Since then we have seen an increase, but now we are seeing a decrease at exactly the time when we need officers on the beat.

Lastly, may we have a debate on whether it can ever be justified to have a pension of £650,000 a year—three and a half times the Prime Minister's annual salary, 30 times the salary of the people in the call centres and the telling staff who are being sacked this week from the same organisation, and 140 times the basic state pension? When a public company is involved, can that level of expenditure ever be justified—or is it, as I suspect, corporate theft?

We had to bring the statement to the House as soon as we could. The Treasury Committee was undertaking an important inquiry at the same time, so its members could not be present in the Chamber. That is unfortunate, but it was not readily avoidable. However, I take this opportunity to say that that Treasury Committee inquiry shows the Select Committee system at its best, doing a very important job on behalf of the public interest, and I pay tribute to its Chairman and all its members. We await their report with interest. They are performing an important public and parliamentary service.

The hon. Gentleman thinks that we could scrutinise the spending of Departments better. Perhaps he, the Shadow Leader of the House and I should meet to discuss whether we can find agreement on a way to improve the processes. I think that he has a point, but I am not quite sure what the solution to it is.

There has been, on average, a 16 per cent. increase in resources to police authorities, so I am unclear how there could be a cut in police numbers in the hon. Gentleman's area. There has been a debate on law and order this week, in which I know those issues were widely aired.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the pension he mentioned can be justified. I can answer that by saying no, it cannot be justified to have a pension from the age of 50 of £650,000 a year, especially if there is any question of its being financed at public expense.

May we have an opportunity to debate the location of the medical examination centres for benefit claimants used by the Department for Work and Pensions? From a written answer from the Department, I have learned that more than 3,300 individuals from the Milton Keynes postcodes were asked to go for medical examinations in 2008, and forced to travel to either Aylesbury or Luton, both of which are extremely difficult to get to from Milton Keynes by public transport. Obviously, such people often do not have their own transport, or cannot use it. May we have an urgent re-examination of the arrangements and relocation of medical centres, so they are near where the claimants are, instead of in some bizarre, historical, random location?

I shall draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and if my hon. Friend finds that the response is not satisfactory in relation to her constituents, she might think of seeking a Westminster Hall debate on the subject.

How does the right hon. and learned Lady plan to protect MPs from spurious negligence litigation?

A great deal of consideration is given to how we deal with this matter. At the last business questions, I set out the approach in principle that I think that we should take. The solution I would propose involves the role of the Speaker, perhaps joining as a party to encourage the court to recognise that it needs to strike out its original judgment. I feel that we have a duty of care to our constituents: that is a duty in our code of conduct. We are accountable: we are accountable to our electors at general elections. We are not accountable to the courts, except in respect of the criminal law, contract law and employment law. The judgment on how we have responded to our constituents is not for the judiciary; it is for every single elector and our constituents.

May I echo the call of Alan Duncan for a debate on fairness in policing, because we now have a situation in London where if someone happens to be a friend or associate of Boris Johnson, the chairman of our Metropolitan Police Authority, they are likely to get a phone call from him to discuss private conversations he has had, in his capacity as chairman of the authority, with chief officers who are involved in important investigations? That is an unsatisfactory situation. The Mayor has been admonished this week by an inquiry into that question, and the MPA will now have to consider setting up protocols to control the behaviour of the Mayor of London. The matter is worthy of debate on the Floor of the House, so may we have such a debate in the near future?

That is a subject on which my hon. Friend might seek a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment, because it could involve a number of other London Members. It is a very important constitutional principle that elected members leave the police to get on with their job. We provide the resources and the legal framework, but it is not for elected members to decide who or what the police should be investigating or to seek to interfere with the conduct of police inquiries. That is totally wrong.

May we have a debate on political correctness in the light of the excellent remarks made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government earlier this week, and particularly in relation to schools? Despite the right hon. Lady's speech, they are currently enjoying a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-history month, with schools performing "Romeo and Julian". Does the Leader of the House agree that it is better for pupils to learn about "Romeo and Juliet" and Shakespeare than the politically correct "Romeo and Julian", and does she also agree with her right hon. Friend on these matters?

I do not regard myself as a Shakespeare expert, but, as far as I can remember, in Shakespearean times boys would play girls and girls would play boys, and the whole point was trying to work out which was which. As to pressing forward on equality, there will be a debate next Thursday on new equality legislation, so that we can ensure that everybody in this country is treated with fairness and respect and is not subject to prejudice and discrimination—or, indeed, cheap shots from the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the decision of Amazon, the online sales company, to withdraw the video game "Rapelay", which, as she knows, allows players to simulate the stalking and raping of women? However, does she share my concern that it is still possible to offer for sale these kinds of degrading and deplorable video games? Also, when can we expect to have a debate on the aftermath of the Byron review, which the Prime Minister set up? Could we have that debate as soon as possible?

There are two issues on which I know the Home Affairs Committee, which my right hon. Friend chairs, has been doing important work: such video games and the violent and pornographic material they contain, and the accessibility of such material on the internet. I am aware that there is an early-day motion in my right hon. Friend's name, which has attracted a number of signatures. We will be keeping the matter carefully under review and working closely with those in the industry, as well as the Internet Watch Foundation.

Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government plan to let the Autism Bill go into Committee—or do they plan to block it tomorrow?

The procedure will be dealt with in the usual way, but what autistic adults and families with autistic children are concerned about is the substance of the services they get and what financial support they can get. As far as the process is concerned, we are going ahead with the strategy and the consultation. We will just have to wait and see what happens when the Bill comes before the House.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at my early-day motion 872?

[That this House does not approve of the Government's proposed authorisation of a contingent liability in excess of £250,000 associated with the Defence Training Review set out in the Departmental Minute laid before Parliament on 17 February 2009, for which there is no specific authority; notes that only two copies of the Minute have been provided to the House; further notes that the Minute and the reference to it in the Votes and Proceedings for 23 February 2009 provides no information on which the House can come to a considered view on the proposed liability; and requests the Government to refrain from incurring the liability until approval has been given by a resolution of the House consequent on a thorough examination by the Committee of Public Accounts and the relevant departmental select committee.]

Although it is headed "Contingent Liability on Defence Review Training Costs", the EDM relates to the point raised by Mr. Heath regarding how we deal with the authorisation of expenditure.

I discovered this week that there are things called unnumbered Command Papers, only two copies of which are supplied by the relevant Government Department to the House of Commons. One goes to the Library and the other goes to the Clerks Department; notionally, the latter is laid on the Table of the House. It seems that, in our ignorance, we nod through not just thousands but millions of pounds of authorised expenditure—a blank cheque for Departments—without any Member rumbling it. Apparently, it appears subsequently in the Journal of the House.

Will the Leader of the House consider how we can scrutinise this massive expenditure—it occurs some 30 or 40 times a year—so that Members of Parliament and the appropriate Committees can examine, probe and call to account the Ministers and Departments that bounce the expenditure through on a rubber-stamp basis?

There is no intention that anything involving public spending should be rubber-stamped. There is scrutiny by Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee, and there is the scrutiny that follows the Budget. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions as to how we can more effectively scrutinise public expenditure—the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—we would certainly be prepared to discuss them. In the first instance, perhaps my hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the House could conduct a discussion, and if anybody wants to contribute to it, they can talk to him. None of us has any interest in anything other than making sure that every pound of taxpayers' money is properly and effectively spent.

My Constituency is home to the largest clinical unit dealing with anorexics and bulimics in the whole of the north of England, yet the supply of places there is still outstripped by demand. Given the answer that I recently received to a parliamentary question about the increase in the number of young women under the age of 16 suffering from eating disorders—the number has increased by 80 per cent. in the past 10 years—does the Leader of the House not feel that the time has come to have a debate on why there has been such a drastic increase in these figures and what more can be done to help?

I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but it might also be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to seek a debate in Westminster Hall on this issue. A number of other Members might like to join in that debate and to hear what the relevant Minister has to say.

The business statement has been going for 30 minutes, and in that time six or seven of our fellow citizens in the UK have suffered a stroke. Each year, some 150,000 people die from stroke, which is the third largest killer and the largest single reason for major disability in this country. At a conference in Leicester that I addressed on Monday, it was clear that the people there wanted the Government to return to a focus on the national stroke strategy, particularly in relation to so-called mini-strokes or transient ischaemic attacks. If treatment is provided within 24 hours for those at high risk, or within seven days for those at lower risk, it can reduce the risk of a recurrent, more major stroke by 80 per cent. or more, saving many thousands of lives. May we have a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, on this topic, which is sometimes not given the priority that it deserves?

That would be a good topic for debate. I very much welcome the national campaign to raise awareness of the need for fast action when a stroke occurs. The Government have kept a continued focus on the national stroke strategy—not least on the prevention measures that can be taken but also, importantly, on ensuring that in all areas the hospital response is as good as in the very best instances. Massive progress has been made recently and we want to ensure that everyone can get the very best care.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Justice Secretary or the Lord Chancellor's Department to make a written statement on the working of the Legal Services Commission contract payments protocol? Obviously, no one expects a legal aid firm to get every minor variation paid each month, but where the standard monthly payment falls to about one quarter of the money outstanding to a legal aid firm, there ought to be a way of making sure that that payment is made. If the LSC consults the Law Society and the experts in my Constituency, Jane Macdougall and Christine Campbell, it will probably find ways to make sure that the rules allow justice to be done. The Government want to make sure that debts are paid. Money is outstanding to good legal firms.

I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has tabled a written question, but the detailed points might be well made in such a question before he seeks a written ministerial statement.

The Leader of the House paid a generous tribute to the Treasury Committee. May I urge her to let us debate the Committee's findings on the port rating crisis, to which my hon. Friend Alan Duncan referred? Is she aware that, just in the last fortnight, a written answer has confirmed that the advice to Ministers from the Insolvency Service is that the statutory instrument she mentioned does not in any way affect the requirement of businesses to enter all rates outstanding in their balance sheet? Ministers are also reminded that directors who continue to trade can face direct personal sanctions for doing so.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liaison Committee, consisting of the Chairmen of all the Select Committees, discusses and agrees which Select Committee reports are to be chosen for debate on the Floor of the House, and then makes a recommendation to the House.

May we have a full day's debate—in Government time, not just on the Adjournment of the House on a Thursday—on future strategy in Afghanistan encompassing the present military effort, the lack of air power, the success or otherwise of reconstruction projects and other related matters, so that Members of this House can have a real opportunity to debate the future and the possible political successes or otherwise?

We had a debate on Thursday 5 February on Afghanistan and Pakistan, a subject that the Government chose. Regular statements are made by the Secretary of State for Defence, and the topic is regularly raised in Foreign Office questions and, indeed, Prime Minister's questions. I assure the hon. Lady that I continue to look for opportunities to debate these important matters in the House.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the evidence given to the Treasury Committee yesterday by Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, to the effect that the regulatory regime pursued by the FSA was based on poor instructions, that it was a bad model and that it was too light. He went on to say that that was because of pressure from the Treasury—in other words, from the present Prime Minister. May we have a statement from the Prime Minister next week on his response to those grievous allegations and, in particular, on how he can go on saying that our financial crisis was caused by problems abroad, given that it is wholly plain that he contributed very significantly to them?

As I said, the Treasury Committee is doing very important work in its inquiry. We look forward to the evidence that continues to be given to the Committee and the report that will follow, which the Government will consider carefully. As far as statements are concerned, I would like to hear a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and the Opposition on how it is that, after baying year in, year out for less regulation, deregulation and total deregulation, they appear suddenly to be in favour of more regulation.

May we have an urgent debate on the disparity between what the Government say they are doing to help small business and the reality on the ground? On 10 December, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, copying a simple inquiry from a constituent company in Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire about information on grants that had been announced. Having received no reply, I wrote again on 29 January, and this month I followed that up with two phone calls to the Department. After 10 weeks, there has been no reply to an inquiry about information that the company needs. What is business to make of that failure to deliver? In its own small way, is not that failure as fraudulent as what the high rollers of finance have perpetrated on the British people?

It is important that initiatives designed to provide substantive support to our vital small business sector at a time of global economic challenge work in practice for every small business that needs help. About 66,000 small businesses have had their tax deferred and all small businesses benefit in one way or another from the VAT cut and the extra money that has gone into the economy from tax rebates. The need to ensure that loan guarantees are available for reasonable borrowing is one of the reasons we produced the booklet "Real Help now for People, for Business". We have divided that up so that businesses in each region can see what help is available. If the system is not working as intended, that is very significant for the individual who needs help. I will ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take up the case and report back to me and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, so that if an individual case has hit a problem it can be sorted out, or if it illustrates a wider problem, we can deal with it.

My hon. Friend Ann Winterton rightly referred to the urgent need for a debate on the situation in Afghanistan, but will the Leader of the House allow a full day's debate on foreign affairs in Government time on the Floor of the House? She has previously indicated that she would attempt to schedule such a debate. Given that there are simmering crises in Zimbabwe, Darfur in western Sudan and Burma—to name but three—with egregious human rights abuses being committed in each case, is it not time that this House debated the British and multilateral policy response to those crises?

The hon. Gentleman adverts to the fact that we have recently had several debates on important foreign affairs issues, including not only Afghanistan and Pakistan but Sri Lanka. Sir Nicholas Winterton and my hon. Friend Kate Hoey regularly raise in business questions the need for a debate on Zimbabwe, and we all agree that that is pressing. Although I have not been able to announce such a debate in the business for the next two weeks, I can say that we will have a debate on Zimbabwe next month. I know that the House wants the opportunity to debate that issue.

On the wider point of a general debate on foreign affairs, there are routine general debates, and I shall have to look at that question.

Does the Leader of the House believe that it is appropriate to proceed with the appointment of Members to regional Select Committees at a time of dire financial crisis? That proposal will cost the House of Commons—in other words, the taxpayer—£2 million. I ask her to reconsider the appropriateness of proceeding with that proposition at this time.

May I also thank the Leader of the House publicly for saying that we will have a debate on Zimbabwe? I think that I have heard the date on the grapevine, and we are very grateful to her for finding time for a debate on that critical subject.

Bearing in mind the enormous investment in regions—through the highways authorities, the learning and skills councils, Building Schools for the Future and new hospitals and health centres, not to mention the regional development agencies—which can have a profound effect on a region and its people, this is precisely the time when regional agencies should be more accountable for how they spend the money in their region, especially as there is even greater concern now that every pound of public money should be spent properly. I want those regional masters of the universe—the directors of those agencies that have a massive impact at local level—to be accountable to hon. Members for what they do. Therefore, the regional Committees should get to work on looking at the capital investment and the regional strategies of agencies.

Far be it from me to suggest what any regional Committee should do, but one of the things that the Committees could do is ask these regional masters of the universe for the details of their bonuses and pension packages. That would be an increase in accountability that might have a good effect on public spending.

Will the Leader of the House convey my thanks to the Justice Minister for the help I have received from his officials in defining both the content and form of my Amendment that, if Mr. Speaker selects it on Monday, will allow Members to decide whether candidates should be forced to reveal their home addresses during elections? When she is thanking the Justice Minister, will she ask for a statement from a Minister or a Law Officer about whether the law on treason still applies? I ask that in the light of yesterday's serious reports that British passport holders are operating in war zones and attacking British service personnel. It needs to be made clear to anyone who seeks or holds a British passport that such activity is not only criminal, but treasonable.

I will ask the Attorney-General to write to the hon. Gentleman about the enforceability of different aspects of our domestic law in respect of overseas actions. She can set out the full position for him.

I will convey the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Justice Secretary, but I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his work. He has tabled a good Amendment that, if selected and accepted, will make it clear to electors in which Constituency candidates live without forcing candidates to reveal their addresses if they do not want to do so. That is a very sensible amendment, and I understand that Labour Members will have a free vote on it. If it is selected, I shall certainly vote for it.

May we have a statement on the pernicious effects on local economies of the abolition of empty property relief for business rates? My constituent, Mr. Chris Brigstock, runs a local property development company and next week he will have to dismantle one of his warehousing facilities because he simply cannot afford to pay the business rates on it and he does not qualify for the temporary relief scheme that the Government have introduced. Economies such as Kettering cannot afford the loss of local infrastructure, and it is entirely due to Government legislation.

I know that the Treasury is keeping this issue under review and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman write to the Chancellor of the exchequer with details of the company concerned to see whether any wider lessons can be drawn from its experience.