May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday you informed the House of the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech.

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 23 November-Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech. The subjects for debate, as you announced, Mr. Speaker, will be Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Defence.

Tuesday 24 November-Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech. Energy and Climate Change and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be debated.

Wednesday 25 November-Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech. Home Office and Work and Pensions will be debated.

Thursday 26 November-Conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech. Her Majesty's Treasury and Business, Innovation and Skills will be debated.

Friday 27 November- The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 30 November will include:

Monday 30 November-Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill.

Tuesday 1 December-Motion to approve a European document relating to financial services, followed by a general debate on fisheries.

Wednesday 2 December-Remaining stages of the Equality Bill.

Thursday 3 December-A general debate on European affairs.

I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 December will be:

Thursday 3 December-A debate on the 31st Annual House of Commons Commission Report.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it may also be helpful to the House to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the exchequer has announced that he proposes to present the pre-Budget Report on Wednesday 9 December.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. May I congratulate her on being crowned parliamentarian of the year by The Spectator last week? To the extent that we at business questions are the flint she sparks off, we share in her reflected glory. May we assume that she is now a subscriber to that publication?

May we have a statement on the prospects for the Bills in the Queen's Speech? On Monday, the right hon. and learned Lady claimed that the Majority of the Bills in the Queen's Speech would become law before the next election. We have an absolute maximum of 70 sitting days before Dissolution, and we need to set aside time for debates on the pre-Budget report, as well as ensuring that we have time to discuss other issues, such as Afghanistan. Given all that, does the right hon. and learned Lady still stand by her original claim, or will she admit that there may be difficulties in fulfilling the Government's commitments? Given the limited time we have left, recess dates have an added significance, so is the right hon. and learned Lady still encountering problems in coming up with a date for the Easter recess?

On Kelly, the Government are mired in confusion, with different Ministers saying different things. On the radio this morning, the Leader of the House said that all the proposals would be implemented before the General Election, but that will not happen unless we move quickly, so can she confirm that if we table the amendments to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill necessary to implement Kelly in full, we shall have the Government's support?

On the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, can the right hon. and learned Lady tell us when she intends to table the motion on the appointment of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy? At the last business questions, on 5 November, I was told that it would be done "within a few days". Since then, we have heard nothing. The Government's handling of the issue is beginning to look dysfunctional. Why has the timetable been allowed to slip?

Can the right hon. and learned Lady give an indication of when the House will get a chance to debate and vote on the imminent report from the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons? Can she say whether she will be making a statement on the day that report is published?

Can the Leader of the House make time for a debate on Afghanistan? It is important that the House continues to be given time to discuss our commitment, and to probe the Government's strategy. Last week, newspaper reports suggested that the Government would be investing in new Chinook helicopters and that an announcement would be made before the pre-Budget report. Can the right hon. and learned Lady provide any further details about the plans of the Ministry of Defence?

Finally, can the Leader of the House tell us why there will be no comprehensive spending review this autumn? Everyone knows that departmental spending has to be reduced by 10 per cent. according to the Government's own reckoning, yet on Tuesday it emerged that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families had made an unsolicited demand for an extra £2.6 billion for his Department's budget, forcing the Chancellor to admit that he was not undertaking a spending review at all. The Government have just published a Bill promising to halve the deficit, but is it not clear that the Chancellor has lost control over his colleagues' spending habits, and is the abandonment of a spending review not further evidence that the Government are putting their own interests above those of the country?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous comments on my receiving the parliamentarian of the year award from The Spectator. I have to confess that it was a great surprise to me. Over the years, The Spectator has called me many things but they have not approximated to parliamentarian of the year. I am not actually going to subscribe to the publication, but I shall offer some of its columnists a course at my institute for political correctness, which some of them could probably do with.

As far as the legislative programme is concerned, the House knows that it is the Government's responsibility to bring before the House the Laws that we think are necessary. We have introduced proposals for laws to deal with the financial situation facing the country, and to improve public services. It is the responsibility of the House to scrutinise those proposals. Obviously, given the forthcoming General Election, some Bills may well receive full consideration in one House but only a Second Reading in the other, and so might go into what is described as the wash-up; they will then have to be the subject of negotiation between the parties, instead of receiving the full scrutiny of the Houses. That situation obtains before every general election. It would certainly not be right to step back from our responsibilities of government; we have to introduce a legislative programme and put before the House laws that we believe are in the interests of this country. The Easter recess will be announced in due course in the usual way.

On the Kelly situation, I want to reassure the House and the right hon. Gentleman, and ensure that the public are reassured, that we all remain determined to address the problems around allowances. We recognise the public anger and concern that the allowance system was misused, which is why we legislated in the summer to put the whole system on an independent footing, so that never again will the House set or administer its own allowance system. We invited Sir Christopher Kelly to investigate and make proposals for a new framework for allowances, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done.

I should like to reinforce what I said on 4 November: we, and all parties, accept Sir Christopher Kelly's report and look to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to implement it. I did say at the time that there were further issues that it might fall to the House to deal with; they include the issue of additional lay members on the Standards and Privileges Committee, common auditing arrangements between the independent parliamentary standards commissioner and the House, and restricting the chair of IPSA to serving for one five-year term. We can, incidentally, do the latter by resolution of the House, when we confirm-as I hope that we will-the chair's appointment. When the House deals with the motion appointing the chair, it might be a good opportunity to deal with the other four members of IPSA.

As I say, by means of a resolution of the House we can, without legislation, make sure that the post is held for one term only, as Sir Christopher Kelly proposes. He himself says that legislation on the issue of the dual mandate should be a matter for the next Parliament. If there are any other issues that hon. Members feel cannot be dealt with by the House through a resolution, or by the existing powers of IPSA, I will be happy to discuss them, as I said on 4 November. However, I do not want anybody to convey to the public the idea that we are all on the back foot on the issue-that we have gone soft on it and have swept it back under the carpet. The public would not accept that, and neither would we. We will make sure that the reforms are all carried through.

I am grateful to the Wright Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which was established by a resolution of the House. Its members have been hard at work, and I look forward to its report next Tuesday. We will all want an opportunity to consider its recommendations, which will represent important opportunities to strengthen the role of the House, and we will need to ensure an opportunity for the House to debate, and act on, that report.

Issues relating to Afghanistan are bound to be raised on Monday, when the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary speak in the Queen's Speech debate. As the matter was raised the last time that we had business questions, I know that there is a concern that there should be a specific, discrete debate on Afghanistan, and I will keep that matter very much under review. As for Secretaries of State making unsolicited demands of the Treasury for extra money, the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well that that is absolutely par for the course.

Enthusiasm for the fantasy Queen's Speech is obviously shared by Members from the right hon. and learned Lady's party, who are here in such great numbers today. The reality is that, whatever she says about the wash-up-and I understand how the term applies in this instance-almost all these measures will not make it through their parliamentary stages. Those that do will be abracadabra Bills: measures that-shazam!-at a stroke halve the fiscal deficit; and-shazam!-at a stroke abolish poverty throughout the world. That is fantasy politics, and we recognise it as such.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we still have Afghanistan. I hear the Lord Privy Seal say that she is considering a debate, but we need a debate in this House on Afghanistan, and on the political as well as the military aspects of the situation. I see that the week after next, we are to have a debate about fisheries, which is an important subject, but not as important to this country as what is happening in Afghanistan, so will she look again at that programme?

I listened to what the right hon. and learned Lady said about Kelly, but I still believe that there is a need for statutory changes. Will she meet Sir George Young and me, so that we can discuss what needs to be introduced? Can she assure me that she will not use the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill as a vehicle for those changes; or, if she does, that she will extend the period of scrutiny to enable it to be done properly?

The proposed health Bill is proving to be one of the more controversial aspects of the Queen's Speech. A senior Labour figure in Another place called it a "pernicious myth", and Lord Warner, who was a Health Minister until recently, said:

"There's a big question mark as to whether there's even actually a Bill ready".

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that a Bill is ready by publishing it on Monday? Many Bills are published today, so can the health Bill be published on Monday to scotch straight away the rumour that a Bill is not even ready?

Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell me what has happened to the agency workers Bill that was mentioned in the Queen's Speech? Will she also confirm that, when she read out the business for the following week, she misspoke when she mentioned the Equality Bill, and meant to say, "the first day of the remaining stages of the Equality Bill"? She has given many assurances to my hon. Friend Dr. Harris that that Bill will be given sufficient time on the Floor of the House.

Finally, the Government list has, as usual, been published, but it omits the assistant Regional Ministers. Many of us are very vague about what exactly assistant Regional Ministers might be for, and about their role; but I am indebted to Sir Patrick Cormack, who last Thursday raised the fact that the assistant Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber asked a question of the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber about the work of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in the region. We have a situation in which one Minister asks another about matters that are their ministerial responsibility. Is that proper parliamentary scrutiny?

The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake when he describes the legislation that we introduced in the Queen's Speech as "fantasy politics" and "abracadabra Bills". The Crime and Security Bill, which gives the police more powers to deal with gangs, is necessary, and I hope that he and his hon. Friends will support it. The Energy Bill and the Flood and Water Management Bill, which has already received extensive scrutiny, are not abracadabra Bills; they are necessary Bills, as are the Equality Bill and the Financial Services Bill. Hon. Members need to be clear: are they saying that all those Bills, which will tackle the problems of the economy and improve public services, are not necessary? We believe that the economy needs to be stabilised and that there needs to be further improvement in public services. Legislation is not the be-all and end-all, but it is an important part of the story.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for extra, focused debating time on Afghanistan, and I shall keep that under close review. He suggests that that debate should take place instead of the fisheries debate, but the fisheries debate is a regular event, and hon. Members whose constituencies very much depend on the fishing industry would take it amiss if we suddenly pulled the plug on the fisheries debate. However, I do recognise his point about Afghanistan.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about what does, or does not, need legislation for the future, in order that we do what we all agree we should do, which is to take forward the Kelly proposals, of course I am happy for him and the Shadow Leader of the House to come and see me to talk these issues through. I will give the hon. Gentleman one example of where Sir Christopher Kelly thought that a statute would be necessary-the prohibition on employing family members. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority does not need to have a legal right to bar the employment of family members, because MPs can employ whoever they want to employ, but it can say, "We will not reimburse-pay out of public funds-anybody who is a member of that MP's family." By imposing a condition, it can ensure that it effects and implements that part of Sir Christopher Kelly's report. Additional legislation is not needed, because the legislation that we passed in the House to set up IPSA gives it the power to lay down conditions on how it pays out allowances. I am more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to come and see me to go through the list of things that are ancillary to the main structure of allowances that Sir Christopher Kelly proposed. I know that Sir Christopher has already met up with IPSA's chair designate, and they are at work on implementing the whole Kelly framework and package on allowances.

We have not yet introduced the personal care at home Bill, but it is ready. The Bills that we are presenting to the Commons today are the Crime and Security Bill, the Financial Services Bill, the Energy Bill, the Children, Schools and Families Bill, and the Flood and Water Management Bill; and we have the existing carry-over Bills-the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, the Equality Bill, and the Child Poverty Bill. All the things that have been said about the personal care at home Bill were said about the national health service. People have said that it cannot be done; we said, yes, it can be done, and it is necessary. Just as we set up the national health service, so we need to pave the way for a national care service for the growing number of elderly people in this country.

The announcement that Ordnance Survey's mapping data will be available free to the many thousands of digital industries and community groups in Britain is very welcome. However, there is much more public sector information sitting around in departmental hard drives, such as Land Registry data and transport times. May we have a debate on how public sector information can increase the UK economy's productivity and support community groups?

My hon. Friend may well look for an opportunity to raise that subject in the Queen's Speech debate on Thursday when we discuss the economy and business. He is absolutely right. Putting in the public domain information that is held by Government and by public agencies will allow a great deal of spin-off in the private sector. He has taken a leading role in proposing this; it is a situation whereby, as Ordnance Survey has shown, this country can lead the way and we can benefit from it.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for obtaining a copy of the Gracious Speech, a close reading of which shows that there is no reference to defence policy whatsoever. Will the right hon. and learned Lady allow time for an early debate on defence policy? The Sunday newspapers are writing up the story that there is a review of defence policy leading to potential closures of RAF stations in the Vale of York, which is causing great alarm. I pay tribute to those at RAF Leeming and RAF Linton-on-Ouse for all the work that they do locally and nationally for the country. Will she allow time for an early debate to calm their concerns?

Although there is no legislation in relation to our armed forces, the Prime Minister, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, referred extensively to the armed forces and their mission in Afghanistan in their speeches yesterday. The hon. Lady will be able to refer to any particular issues in relation to her Constituency in the debate on defence on Monday 23 November.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her report on the forthcoming business of the House, in which she mentioned Christopher Kelly's report. May we have an early debate on the findings of both the Legg and the Kelly inquiries? I am asking not for legislation, but just for a debate. Will the Shadow Leader of the House encourage his friend the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Cameron to attend such a debate, and explain whether his enthusiasm for the retrospective aspects of Legg and the Kelly report's eventual ending of all claims for mortgage interest repayments could be combined by his offering to repay all his substantial claims for interest over many years, which would, in turn- [ Interruption. ]

Order. I think we have the thrust of it, but I say to the Leader of the House that I know she is sufficiently dextrous to be able to answer the question without trespassing on territory for the Opposition. She is responsible, of course, for the position of the Government.

It is important that Sir Thomas Legg can get on with his work. It is also important for the public to be able to see that every single claim made by Members of the House over the past five years has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb and to see that any overpayments, even those made by mistake, are paid back, so that we can turn and face them and say, "Any over-claiming has been dealt with and it's all been paid back."

As far as Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals are concerned, I have said on previous occasions that I do not think they should come back to the House for us to pick and choose between them. They should be looked at as a package and accepted as a package, and sent forward to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to implement. I do not think the public want to see us going through the proposals and deciding which allowance will go, which will stay, which will be raised and which will be lowered-I think they want to see that done independently and any overpayments paid back. We are accountable to the public in the House of Commons and we should recognise that that is the feeling of public concern.

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the City of London, which lies at the heart of our economy, with 15 per cent. of gross domestic product, is absolutely crucial? The debate she has proposed for 1 December is going to be crucial, as the European Scrutiny Committee has said. Does she accept that it is absolutely essential that we have a proper, substantive motion that is capable of Amendment, so that we can ensure that Majority voting and co-decision arrangements, and the power and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, do not dictate to us the manner in which our financial services are run in future?

It looks as though the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise the points he wants to raise on 1 December and next Monday in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office debate. He can also raise the importance of financial services in the Treasury debate.

In the blizzard of 106 early-day motions tabled yesterday, one or two are of real importance, not least early-day motion 69.

[That this House notes that the Government prohibited the use of animals to test cosmetic products and their ingredients, because it caused unjustified suffering given the nature of the products; is concerned that the use of animals in scientific procedures continues to outstrip the development of non-animal alternatives in spite of the valuable work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research and other organisations involved in the development and promotion of non-animal alternatives, replacing the need for animal testing and offering hope of humane scientific research; and call s on the Government to implement a policy of prohibition on issuing licences to conduct scientific research and test household products and their ingredients on animals without delay.]

May we have a debate on that important topic? Despite the work of the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, the number of animals used is heading inexorably for 4 million and beyond. We can do much better. As a humane society, we have a good track record on animal welfare, despite the Opposition's attempts to roll that back. May we look at the issue of animals in such experiments?

As my hon. Friend knows, because he has championed the issue of animal welfare, we have a very good record and very high standards of protecting animals in scientific research, but we also place a very high value on scientific research, which can make a massive difference to alleviating disease and saving lives. The important thing is to enable that research to proceed without causing unnecessary suffering to animals. I wonder which aspect of the Queen's Speech debate might lend itself to that-I guess it would be either the business or the Home Office aspect.

Sadly, the debate on European affairs on 3 December will not give us an opportunity to talk about the future President of the European Council because a decision on that is likely to be made today. None of us here has been given a vote, so surely there is a lack of democracy in the process. Does the Leader of the House not believe that it is rather bizarre that more people are interested in the futures of John and Edward from "The X Factor" than they are in someone who will have an impact on how we in this country are governed?

I am sorry, but when the hon. Gentleman started talking about "The X Factor" I could not work out how that related to the important task of making sure that Europe has a clear and coherent voice. We must play a central part in that and we await the outcome today.

The Leader of the House says that she will keep the case for a debate on Afghanistan under review, but what criteria will she use to make her final decision that there should be a debate, given that there are so many developments in that country? Will she assure the House that in her review she will make sure that the House has the time for a focused debate on Afghanistan before we rise for the Christmas recess?

It is important to look across the business of the House as a whole for each week, including statements, questions, general and topical debates and debates initiated by the Opposition parties on Opposition Days. I want to make sure that the House has the time that it needs to debate Afghanistan. The country expects the House to devote a proper amount of time to debating our mission there, and to holding Defence Ministers and the Prime Minister to account for it. I want to make sure that every week there is an opportunity for those issues to be raised.

May I ask the Leader of the House to introduce a timetable motion next week to extend the time for debate on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? Will she accept that one reason why Parliament is held in such low esteem is that it is correctly seen that we are not performing our function properly, especially with regard to holding the Executive to account and scrutinising legislation? She will know that a number of new clauses and amendments have been proposed to the Bill-some of them tabled by me-that might go some way towards addressing that problem. These are matters that this House must debate, and we need more time to do it properly.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that questions of timing are dealt with by timetable motions and that, as far as possible, we seek to reach agreement with those on the Opposition front bench on how we do that. Obviously, there is an element of unpredictability, as it is not always easy to identify in advance which clauses will cause an extension of the debate. I look forward to the Wright Committee's report to see whether the Committee feels that it can improve how this is done.

The Leader of the House referred to the Wright Committee, so can she give greater detail about the timetable for debate on the report, once it is published? For example, can she guarantee that we will have a debate, and that resolutions will be put before the House, before the Christmas recess?

It is a bit difficult to say how we will deal with the Wright Committee's report until we have seen what the balance is of substantive proposals or suggestions for further debate. Obviously, the report will be very important for the House as a whole, and no doubt decisions will have to be made by the House as a whole following the report's publication. I shall try to make sure that we have as much time as possible to debate it, and that we are able to come to resolutions and decisions on it as soon as possible, commensurate with hon. Members having time to look at the report and debate it.

The Leader of the House will know that the Kelly committee has a member from each of the main political parties, although we did not take part in the inquiry into Members' expenses for obvious reasons. However, there are 11 measures in the Kelly report that require primary legislation and which cannot be dealt with by IPSA or by resolution. If Sir Christopher sends her a list of those particular items in his report, will she support or introduce amendments to put those changes into effect before the General Election?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion that he will send me a list of the issues that are considered to require further legislation, but he does not need to do so, because that was in Sir Christopher Kelly's report, to which, obviously, I have paid close attention. Perhaps it would assist the House if I went through some of those points and said which of them I do not believe will require legislation and which ones possibly will, in the next Session.

First, there is the proposal for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to- [Interruption.] Okay, well, perhaps I will arrange a-

A written statement.

A written statement? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] No, what I said had a question mark-"A written statement?" I am not sure-I think that what I will do is have a meeting. I think the position is perfectly clear, but it might help the House if I could go through- [Interruption.] I know hon. Members are resisting, but it might help the House if I could go through the proposals and say very briefly which ones might need legislation and which do not. Members are calling for information, but then they are resisting my giving it.

I do not believe that recommendation 4 of the report, for IPSA to

"commission a commercial agency to provide and maintain rented accommodation" for MPs requires legislation, because IPSA already has the power to set up such an agency. I have already said that I do not believe the proposal to have no more employment of family members requires legislation, because it can be made a condition of paying a salary that an employee is not a family member.

As for ensuring that there is no dual mandate, Sir Christopher Kelly says that that is a matter for the next Parliament, not this. I do not believe that legislation is needed for a new statutory duty for IPSA to

"support MPs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently", because it already has that duty. I do not believe that we need to legislate on the House retaining responsibility for the code of conduct and the Register of Members' Financial Interests, but we can accept Christopher Kelly's proposal and not bring into effect the change that would take responsibility for that code of conduct away from the House and give it to IPSA.

I do not want to trespass on hon. Members' good nature by going through the other page and a half of my notes, but they will get the drift. The point is that we accept what Sir Christopher Kelly is suggesting and we want to get on with it, but we do not want to legislate if that is unnecessary because the power in question already exists under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

The Equality Bill, as the Leader of the House will know, has 15 parts, 21 chapters, 207 clauses and 28 schedules. I raised with her the importance of full scrutiny of the Bill on Report on 11, 18 and 25 June, 2 July and 15 October, as well as on 16 July, when she said:

"we will want to ensure that we make the Bill an exemplar of how the House should scrutinise Bills on Report".-[ Hansard, 16 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 456.]

As far as I know, there has been no consultation with my party or the Conservative party on the fact that only one day is being given for Report, and no consultation so far on how we are going to get through the 30 new clauses, even before Government new clauses are considered, and the 37 amendments that have already been tabled. Can she assure us that more days will be given for the scrutiny of the Bill?

I will check back on whether there were discussions on that with the Opposition Front Benchers, and I will give the matter further consideration. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in raising that point, and I will check out whether I have done what I promised him I would.

Will the Leader of the House encourage her colleague the Defence Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the release yesterday of the second board of inquiry report into the tragic death of Captain James Philippson in Afghanistan in 2006? She may recall that the Defence Secretary made certain allegations about Major Bristow in connection with the death of Captain Philippson, which he will no doubt want to correct, particularly as the second board of inquiry and the coroner's report suggested that equipment was implicated.

The Defence Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box on Monday, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene to make that point and seek a response directly from him.

The questions that have been asked about the Kelly report and the answers that the Leader of the House has attempted to give are eloquent testimony to the fact that there is clearly a need for a debate on whether we need primary legislation. The fact that the exchanges have been so shambolic today indicates that the Government appear to have been caught napping.

Our approach has been consistent. We recognise the public anger and concern, and we wanted to bring forward the Legg inquiry so that every claim could be looked through. We were also concerned that Sir Christopher Kelly should conduct an independent inquiry into a future framework for our allowances. The matter should not come back to the House, but should be dealt with independently. That is why we legislated to set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

It would be better if the whole House were able to reassure the public that the necessary work is under way. We are not out of the woods yet. We still have to do the final payback under the Legg report and to hear from IPSA what its new framework for allowances will be, and all that has to be set up before the General Election. Nevertheless, I invite colleagues to recognise that we need to reassure the public that they can have confidence that the House of Commons has sorted out the abuse of expenses. That process is under way.

Is the Leader of the House aware that many of my constituents-and doubtless many of hers and yours, Mr. Speaker-are victims of Equitable Life, and are anxiously awaiting a definitive statement from the Government? We have had several interim statements and we still have the ombudsman's report hanging over us. When will we hear what will happen to those unfortunate people?

I cannot add to what I said last time that question was asked. In a recent debate, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explained that Sir John Chadwick will produce a report on a framework for proceeding with ex gratia payments. The work of the ombudsman's report on Equitable Life took four years, because it is an immensely complex matter going back many years. Obviously, we want the matter to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, so that ex gratia payments can be made. However, it is not easy to work out who needs to be paid and how much. With public money, that has to be done properly, before payments to those who should be getting them can be made as quickly as possible.

I have twice debated the issue of land banking and the mis-selling of green-belt and other land on the basis of unrealistic suggestions about future development. There has been some success since then, but the Financial Services Authority refuses to intervene when the company involved is offshore, regardless of the fact that it is ripping off countless UK investors. Can we have a debate in Government time? Can we also raise the possibility of a cross-departmental taskforce, so that the Government can finally address this important and serious issue?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can expand on those issues in the debate next Thursday, when the Treasury and business will be the subject of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

I congratulate the Leader of the House on becoming parliamentarian of the year. More importantly, however, in the annual review of Cabinet Ministers' rankings she has shot up from No. 11 to No. 2. As the founder and, sad to say, only member of HOTS-Harriet's Official Tory Supporters-may I ask her for a statement about whether her rise is likely to continue, and whether she can break through the glass ceiling and become No. 1?

Sorry, but all the time that I have spoken with the hon. Gentleman from the Dispatch Box, I had not realised that he was hot. I thank him for pointing it out.

Can we have a debate in Government time on the higher education funding review? In particular, it is important for the current funding review to have democratic student representation and be scrutinised properly so that families do not see it simply as a justification for putting up student fees.

There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise those points when a Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills responds to the debate on the Queen's Speech next Thursday.

Several hon. Members:

rose -

I call Mr. Andrew Robathan.

I am grateful-and surprised-to be called, Mr. Speaker.

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope he is not becoming sensitive? He has no reason at all to be surprised.

It is common currency that, regrettably, this Parliament is very discredited and has become irrelevant to too many of our constituents. We have the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, IPSA and the flawed constitutional reform committee, and we are only a few months away from a General Election, yet today only three Labour Back Benchers are bothering to ask the Leader of the House questions. Yesterday we had empty Benches behind the Prime Minister. Can we have a debate on the relevance of Parliament, so that we can bring everything together and make this place the bastion of parliamentary democracy and democracy for our people, instead of the flawed and damaged institution that it has become?

When I was in Opposition for many years, I never came to this House, elected by my constituents, to say from the Opposition Benches that I was irrelevant, or that the work I did was irrelevant. I put it back to the hon. Gentleman that he has been elected by his constituents. That is a massive honour and a massive privilege. He comes to the House of Commons and he can hold Ministers to account and add to the debate. Therefore, he should not talk himself into irrelevance. If he does, he will be doing his constituents a disservice.

Pursuant to that last question, may I remind the Leader of the House that the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons was established precisely to address people's perception that this House is not doing its job of scrutinising Government business properly? Given her answer to my hon. Friend Mr. Chope-that she could give no guarantees about how the results of the Committee's work would be dealt with-let me return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Leader of the House that it would be appropriate to make a statement on the publication of the report next Tuesday. We will have time to read it before she stands up to make it, as the report is to be published in the middle of the night. We look forward to the Government responding to proposals about how Government business can be much better scrutinised, so could the Leader of the House tell us how she will respond to the Committee's findings? I remind her that she had to withdraw her original motion.

I would never argue for complacency. We can always improve the processes of this House and modernise the way in which it does its business. Of course we should keep the issues under active review and make changes where necessary. In the meantime, however, we should not declare our work to be irrelevant, because that would be wrong. Part of the purpose of being a Member of Parliament is to do our job and continue to improve this institution. I said when I was first elected that it is a great and important responsibility to be a Member of Parliament. I came into Parliament to change and improve it, but I certainly did not begin my work by declaring that because I was in Opposition, I was irrelevant.

Thirteen per cent. of our near record prison population in England and Wales is made up of foreign nationals who can be returned to secure detention in their own countries only with their voluntary agreement. Will the Leader of the House make time available for the Lord High Chancellor to make proposals to this House for the compulsory transfer of foreign national criminals back to their countries of origin?

It is very important that there should be prompt deportation at the end of sentences and, where necessary, repatriation of prisoners during their sentences. That is necessary for a number of reasons, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raise those issues next Wednesday.

Can we have a debate on the responsibilities of banks in which the Government are the main shareholder to support small businesses? For example, the Bank of Scotland has withdrawn the post of business relationship manager from its branch on the island of Islay, causing widespread anger among businesses on the island. A manager based on the mainland will never understand the unique circumstances of an island economy. Surely the Chancellor, as the main shareholder in the bank, has a responsibility to ensure that it services businesses throughout the country, so will he intervene in that case?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to raise this matter with the Treasury Minister who will be opening the debate on Thursday 26 November. Of course it is important that all our banks serve their communities, wherever they are.

Given the closeness of the date of the Copenhagen conference, and the success of the Scottish Government on the climate change agenda, is it still the Government's intention to exclude Scottish Ministers from the UK delegation?

The UK delegation is as it is, and just for the moment, I cannot remember how it is- [Interruption.]-but I am sure that it is perfectly formed. I would say, however, that if the Scottish Government want to contribute to tackling climate change, they need to change their attitude to nuclear power.

Last night I viewed the film "Mugabe and the White African", which merits an Oscar. It displays the ghastly horrors that continue to take place in Zimbabwe despite the unity Government. This is a matter for which this country has a major responsibility. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Zimbabwe and the horrors that continue to take place there against both black and white?

We do not have a topical debate next week, but it is some time since we considered a number of the important issues that are arising in Africa, of which the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important example. I will keep that under review.