Thursday 20 January 2005:

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 24 January—Remaining stages of the Gambling Bill.

Tuesday 25 January—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on implementation of the Licensing Act 2003, followed by a debate entitled "Renegotiation of the Food Supplements Directive". Both arise on an Opposition motion.

Wednesday 26 January—A debate on sitting hours and other House motions, followed by remaining stages of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill.

Thursday 27 January—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Friday 28 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 31 January—Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 1 February—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 2 February—Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2005-06, followed by motions on the local government finance report.

Thursday 3 February—Remaining stages of the Child Benefit Bill.

Friday 4 February—Private Members Bills.

It may be helpful if I inform the House that, because of the holocaust memorial day events taking place on 27 January, the sitting of the Westminster Hall Chamber on that afternoon will be held in Committee Room 14. The sitting will be between 2.30 pm and 5.30 pm, with time added as usual for Divisions in the House.

It may be of further help if I notify the House that the explanatory memorandum to accompany the debate on sitting hours is now available in the Vote Office. It explains the principles behind the amendments to Standing Orders, which are complex.

Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business and I certainly welcome the explanatory memorandum, because anyone who has seen the Order Paper will realise how complex those motions are. I also thank him for agreeing to my request that the whole of the Committee stage of the Constitutional Reform Bill be taken on the Floor of the House, in line with convention.

Can the Leader of the House report any progress concerning my request for a foreign affairs debate, so that we can discuss Africa and the middle east, or on my request for the timetable for the Bill on the European constitution? When will it be published? When does he expect to be able to give us the date for the Budget?

Following my question last week about 24-hour drinking, the Leader of the House seemed to support staggered closing times.

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Staggered?

Mr. Heald: Staggered or staggering. Since then, a well-meaning citizen has pointed out to me that page 73 of the Government's guidance to local authorities states:

"licensing authorities should . . . not seek to engineer staggered closing times".

The guidance goes on to suggest that

"all the public houses in a single street could open until 3 am".

May we have a statement on this issue before next week's debate? Do Ministers understand that local residents who are already being troubled at 11 pm do not want such problems at 3 am? Is it not time for the Government to launch a serious attack on binge drinking, instead of what we have at the moment, which is a lot of Government binge talking?

May we have a statement on the figures due to be released by the Office for National Statistics, which show a massive increase in state jobs? Does that not show that the Chancellor is making empty promises about cutting back while in fact indulging in binge hiring?

It is more then a year since the European Scrutiny Committee asked the Leader of the House to change the relevant Standing Orders to enable it to deliberate in public. Will he now table such a motion for next Wednesday, when we will deal with House business and, if not, will he explain why he is dragging his heels over this sensible proposal?

Finally, may we have a statement on the timetable for the former Home Secretary leaving his grace and favour residence, which is provided at the taxpayer's expense? It is said that there are security procedures to be completed but, given the cost of those facilities, are not the public entitled to know how long this process will take?

Mr. Hain: On the last point, it has been said that the former Home Secretary will stay for a while in the Home Secretary's official residence, which has been allocated on the basis of security requirements. The Prime Minister has made that decision and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were, like me, in the Cabinet, he would understand the reasons for it. I deprecate the harassment campaign against the former Home Secretary, and frankly, the hon. Gentleman should come up with better questions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thanking me for providing the explanatory memorandum. As he knows, the motions have been produced in this form because we have to amend the Standing Orders to make permanent the decision of the House next Wednesday. The principles are simple. Provision is made for maintaining the existing hours but for starting an hour earlier on Thursday, so that we can take Government legislation and Opposition debates then and have a full working day. To help the House, given the very divided opinion on the question of sitting on Tuesday evenings between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has tabled a motion that will enable those who wish to return to a 10 pm finish on Tuesday to vote for doing so. That is the reason for the complexity of the motions, but the principles are essentially the same.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for, unusually for him, offering a second thank you, on the Constitutional Reform Bill. We reached agreement on that issue and I understood the arguments that he and the rest of the Opposition made. We are still considering a foreign affairs debate, but he will understand that the legislative programme is very busy, with Second Readings and remaining stages of various Bills. There is important legislation to get through, including on tackling crime and drugs.

I fully expect the Bill on the European constitution to be introduced sooner, rather than later, with its Second Reading to follow. It is a complex piece of legislation, but, obviously, it is a very important Bill.

Information about the Budget date is guarded carefully by the Chancellor. When he can give that information, the House will know as soon as is possible.

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's soundbite on licensing hours, but the fact is that that Act followed more than five years of consultation, and in typical opportunist fashion, the Conservatives supported it when it went though Parliament. Now that there is a hue and cry about it, they flip and jump on the bandwagon. The important truth about this legislation, which is why, when the fuss has died down, it will prove popular with local communities harassed by binge drinking and violence from yobs pouring out of pubs and other licensed premises, is that it hands control to local authorities, which are accountable to local residents, and to the local police, instead of the bureaucratic and long-winded process of going through magistrates courts. The legislation puts the decision with local communities. If local communities feel that licensed premises are encouraging abuse, yobbery, binge drinking and violence, they can either shut them down for 24 hours or ensure that their licences are reviewed. That will ensure that the problem is brought under much better control than has been the case up to now. He knows that that problem has gone on for years and years, and this will help to solve it by putting the power in the hands of local communities, local residents and the local police to crack down on those pubs and clubs that encourage binge drinking and the violence that follows.

On Office for National Statistics figures and public sector jobs, we are proud that, under a Labour Government, there are 77,500 more nurses, 19,000 more doctors, 12,500 more police officers, 29,000 more teachers and 106,000 more school support staff. Under our investment plans, there will be more nurses, teachers, police officers and other front-line service workers to care for and support the public if we win the next general election. Let us compare that with the massive cuts that will follow if a Conservative Government come in, with a return to boom and bust and all the risk to living standards, mortgages and jobs that will follow.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a request for the European Scrutiny Committee to meet in public has been made and it is fair to point out that it was made a while ago. It is being considered by the Modernisation Committee, on which he sits, and we hope that that report will be ready in a month or two, and that the subject will be addressed. He will also be aware that a delicate balance has to be struck between an obvious desire for openness and transparency, which is a principle that I support in general, and the fact that in that Committee, officials and Officers of the House give a lot of detailed advice on complex matters in relation to heavy business. It is also a case of bearing in mind their situation, so that they can do their proper professional job and advise the Committee appropriately.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Last July, my friend the Prime Minister disappointed me by saying that he would not end the practice of awarding hereditary knighthoods. Is not there a case for an early debate on the honours system after the scandal of Mark Thatcher, who has been convicted in the South African courts, but whose knighthood is apparently inviolable? Should not we strip Mark Thatcher of his baronetcy, which is a hereditary knighthood?

Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): Just say yes.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position that I say yes. Mark Thatcher is a baronet, and it would require primary legislation to remove a baronet's title. The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): In the context of the debate on licensing next Tuesday, can we have a more measured Government response on the issue—from the Home Secretary, I presume—than we have just had from the Leader of the House? Has he noticed that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who I presume is not just an opportunist, has this morning appealed for the changes in licensing to go slowly? A full report in the Evening Standard today has the headline, "Our cells overflow with drunk yobs". What is the Government's response to that? It is not just politicians but the police who are asking for the process to be slowed.

The Leader of the House said that legislation on the European constitution would be introduced sooner rather than later. Can he be more specific? When does he anticipate that the Committee stage, which will presumably take place on the Floor of the House, will be completed and, after a necessary delay, when does he expect Third Reading? What date has he written in for completion of proceedings in the House of Lords? If he thinks that that is all going to be completed before 6 April, which many of us have in our diaries as a possible date for the Dissolution of Parliament, surely he has got another thing coming. What advice has he given the Prime Minister on those dates?

Finally, did the Leader of the House notice that this morning an important decision was made about trans-Europe co-operation on serious crime? He may recall that a schoolgirl from my constituency, Caroline Dickinson, was murdered in Brittany nine years ago. Her father, mother and I have been pressing ever since for better co-operation across Europe, particularly on issues of DNA. This morning, an important development took place, and that co-operation is guaranteed in future. That is good news, but it has taken nine years to get there. Can the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to give us a statement on that issue?

Mr. Hain: I understand the predicament of Caroline Dickinson's family and I know that they appreciate the consistent support that the hon. Gentleman has given them, as do his constituents. The Home Secretary will want to consider the issue in the light of his intervention.

On licensing and binge drinking, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner told the Evening Standard today that

"If 24-hour drinking came in, we would need to reinforce staffing levels in the early hours."

The proposals are not for 24-hour drinking in every pub and club across the land. They put sensible flexibility in the hands of local authorities and local police, so local residents can apply immediate pressure if they think that there are abuses. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat who believes in decentralisation and empowering local communities and residents, would be right behind the measure, instead of jumping on the Tory bandwagon. When the fuss has died down, people will realise that they not only have more power under the legislation for flexible and sensible licensing hours so that, for example, theatre-goers can pop in for a final pint or a glass of wine before they go home, but more power to crack down on yobbery and the drunken, violent minority who all come out of our pubs at the same time of night. I am sure that he will want to review his apoplectic intervention in the light of that common-sense advice.

On the European Union Bill, I cannot be more specific, but hon. Gentleman made an intriguing observation about the coming months. I do not know where he got 6 April from—perhaps he is better informed than the Leader of the House. I do not think that there would be a problem from the Liberal Democrats, but it would be interesting to know whether the official Opposition would give a cast-iron guarantee to speed the Bill through the House. If they did so, they and the shadow Leader of the House would have an opportunity to keep pressing me every week on when the referendum will take place. However, there is no such offer from Conservative Front Benchers to help with the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I hope not.

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman and his anti-European supporters, who want to take Britain out of Europe, will want to obstruct the progress of the Bill when it is introduced.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): In the run-up to the debate on sitting hours next Wednesday, is my right hon. Friend aware of a rumour that has been circulating among some right hon. and hon. Members? It is suggested that, if the House votes for a return to the dark ages and later hours on Tuesday, that will automatically mean that Members will be free to leave at 5 pm on Thursday. Would he like to set the record straight?

Mr. Hain: I have heard lots of rumours in the past few days, including that one. The proposal that I am tabling would allow the House to sit an hour earlier on Thursday at 10.30 am but keep the finish time at 6 pm, when there is usually a vote. That would have two benefits. It would allow people to continue to return home to Scotland, the north of England and the far west that evening, but it would also allow us to complete a full day's business with a vote. All too often—for all I know, it may well have happened last night—the place thins out on a Wednesday evening, because it is not easy to take whipped business, legislation or Opposition debates on a Thursday. If there were any attempt to encourage part-time membership of the House by moving the time forward to 5 o'clock, and if that were suggested as an inducement to do something else, as my hon. Friend described, that would be wrong, and I would resist it strongly.

Mr. Forth: May we have an urgent debate on procedure in courts martial? Was the Leader of the House as alarmed as I was about the publication of what can only be described as very prejudicial pictures during the course of a judicial and legal proceeding? Does he think that that was wrong, is he worried about it and can something be done about it? Does he think that this will leave the whole process wide open to appeal?

Mr. Hain: For once, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The point that he makes is very important, which is why the Attorney-General wrote to the newspapers last night about this matter. It is very important that there is a fair trial, and we should do nothing to jeopardise that.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to discuss the conduct and stewardship of our police forces, against the background of concern among Members across the political spectrum about the professional standards department—it used to be known as CIB3—of the Metropolitan police? It is felt that there are police officers who have been suspended for an inordinately long time, often unjustly, and that some police officers are in prison who are innocent and that some people who have put them there are guilty. This is an unspoken and unrehearsed issue, but it needs to come out into the open, because there is widespread concern not only about the Metropolitan police, but about two decades of very poor stewardship of the Sussex police, for example, and systemic failures there.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend always raises important and serious matters, as he has just done. The Home Secretary will want to pay careful attention to what he said, and my hon. Friend will have the chance to question the Home Secretary on Monday week.

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): May we have an early debate about access to the Post Office card account system? Serious issues remain in relation to the inability of many people, but especially the elderly, to operate the system properly and to get through when there are difficulties and get proper answers from customer services. Members of Parliament are not given a direct line through to those involved to help constituents in these important issues. May we have an early debate to try to air some of the problems, get answers and get the problems fixed?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise that matter in Department of Trade and Industry questions on Thursday, but I recognise his point. In my constituency, there are pensioners who have been issued for the first time with a card and personal identification number, but who have never used a PIN before and have lost it, and have therefore been unable to draw the pension to which they are entitled. I know that the Post Office has been alerted to the problem. In some cases, at least in Neath, emergency procedures were put in place. This is a serious issue of which the authorities are aware.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate about economic regeneration and the important role played by regional development agencies? I know that he is aware of the significant regeneration that has taken place in the lower Don valley in my constituency since 1997, including the building of the largest printing works in Europe, which I drew to his attention a few weeks ago. He may not be aware of a masterplan now being developed by the council and British Land with the help of the RDA, Yorkshire Forward, for further significant regeneration, thousands of jobs and 4,000 new homes. Does he agree that those plans and others throughout the country would be put at risk if the Opposition had their way and abolished the regional development agencies, which would be a false economy that would endanger regeneration and jobs throughout the country?

Mr. Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The more the public and the media look into the fine print of the proposals published earlier this week, the more they will see them fall apart. In the case of regional development agencies—this would effectively massacre the work of Yorkshire Forward—a £365 million saving would be made. That means cuts in regeneration and job creation programmes and in the regeneration of communities, and the devastation of regions such as South Yorkshire, which suffered mine closures under the previous Government and have needed more investment to create the enterprise economy that is now taking root. All those measures, including that regional development issue and the Opposition's proposed abolition of the new deal, would result in massive cuts and the return to high unemployment, boom and bust, risks to mortgages and all the rest of the Tory economic misery that the Opposition plan for us yet again.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Is the Leader of the House concerned about the unfair treatment being meted out by Government to local authorities that have responsibility for housing, as they are being denied the resources given by Government or the ability to retain for themselves the money that they get from the rent from municipal property, as against the treatment of registered social landlords, who are treated much more favourably than housing authorities? Macclesfield, which is debt-free, is being forced to dispose of its housing stock through large-scale voluntary transfer against my wishes and the wishes of the council and council tenants. It is being forced to do that because it is not being allowed to keep the necessary sum to maintain and refurbish its council housing stock.

Mr. Hain: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there is a debate on those matters the week after next, on Wednesday 2 February. If he has a chance to intervene or speak in that debate, he may wish to take it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): When the shadow Leader of the House asked perfectly reasonably about a foreign affairs debate, the Leader of the House replied that the legislative programme was very difficult. Well, it is not 1 per cent. as difficult as the position of the coalition in Iraq. What sort of impression do the Government imagine is given of the House of Commons if we can find time for debates on gambling, drink and aspects of constitutional affairs that might wait, and a whole day on our own hours, while there is apparently no time to discuss the immensely important situation in Iraq? Some of us think that, after the election, we may have to make a choice as to whether we are in Iraq for five or 10 years, or whether we go headlong into a Vietnam situation. Surely there is a case for a proper debate on an amendable motion.

Mr. Hain: Obviously, we will want to assess, as will the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, the situation after the Iraqi elections on 30 January. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to applaud the fact that recent polling in Iraq shows that more than 80 per cent. of Iraqis intend to vote if they can and that 111 groups with almost 8,000 candidates are standing in the national elections and a further 11,000 candidates standing in the provincial and Kurdish regional government elections, and a third of all those candidates are women. That provides an opportunity for a major democratic advance in Iraq out of the tyranny that was overthrown when Saddam was deposed and out of the new investment that is now taking place. I accept that the situation is very difficult and that the insurgents and terrorists are seeking to destroy that prospect of democracy, but I would have thought that my hon. Friend would want to support it and to hope and work for the success of the elections on 30 January. After those elections, I am sure that the House will be informed by the Foreign Secretary of the outcome and where future policy might go.

Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD): Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that since the publication last March by Sir Michael Lyons of the public policy programme of civil service dispersal and relocation, the Government have published a plan to reduce dramatically public sector employment, particularly in Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions? Will he acknowledge that it is time the House discussed public sector relocation so that communities that are suffering job losses, such as Galashiels in south-east Scotland, which is subject to DWP cuts, can be considered as priority cases for civil service relocation in future?

Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about his constituency, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will want to consider it carefully. That Department and others have initiated a huge redeployment out of the overheated London and south-east area to the regions and nations of Britain, Scotland and Wales included, where there are the skills and the sites.

Efficiency savings are also being made to divert resources from back-room staff to front-line services. That is very different from the massacre of public sector jobs that will take place under the Conservative plans published earlier this week, which mean that 250,000 people are set to join the dole queue.

Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): On 17 January, the closure of a company, Lubrizol, in my constituency was announced on the internet. I was not consulted, nor was the local authority or the Northwest Development Agency. The decision was made because the US parent company thought that production could be better located elsewhere. The UK company was not a lame duck. It was an efficient company that had won many awards, most recently on Tuesday this week. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the subject of arbitrary closures to be debated? Will he draw the matter to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether it was consulted, whether it regards this as the proper way for an inward investor to behave, and whether the workers and unions were appropriately consulted? Will he also draw the matter to the attention of the Department for Work and Pensions so that the workers who will be affected by the closure, both senior and more junior workers, are given appropriate assistance, should they need it?

Mr. Hain: I am astounded at that account. I have heard of workers being texted to be told that they are redundant, but I have not heard of workers discovering it on the internet, if they have access to it. It is a very bad way for an employer to behave, and I will make sure that Ministers at the Department look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend about the points that he has raised.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): Has the Leader of the House begun to reflect on how he might persuade people in Neath to re-elect him at the next general election? If he has, he will realise that no meaningful decisions can be taken about that campaign until we know what our elections expenses will be. The Electoral Commission made recommendations to the Government on that. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's intention that the next election be fought on the basis of those new recommendations? If so, when will the Government lay the necessary order?

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman has made a plea on behalf of all of us, but I can assure him that my spending will come well under the expenses limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will want to reflect carefully on the point that the right hon. Gentleman made and will, I am sure, respond to it.

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): Can time be found to discuss the work of the small business unit, in particular the small business unit in west Yorkshire, which is supporting plans by a consortium of local businesses to break into new markets in China and eastern Europe? We should debate any vulnerability to which the small business unit might be exposed, especially a £500 million cut, and how that would affect trade into my area.

Mr. Hain: I am alarmed by the plans to axe the Small Business Service, as the Opposition propose. We will not do that, partly for the reason that my hon. Friend gives—it provides vital support for small businesses, which are the engine of our future economic competitiveness. They need the support that the Small Business Service provides. Another proposal is to cut massively the resources and staffing of UK Trade and Investment, which provides important support for exporters who find it hard to gain openings in a very competitive international market. I notice that in the list of cuts proposed earlier this week, nobody, let alone the shadow Chancellor, proposed a cut in the £3 million Short money that the Conservatives get from the taxpayer—very bad value for money, I might add. All the other cuts listed have been added up, but the £3 million of taxpayers' money going to the Conservative party will stay ring-fenced, protected and guaranteed.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): May we have an early debate on the statement on the continued detention in Belmarsh of a number of people held under the terrorism legislation? The Leader of the House will bear in mind that it is now a month since the House of Lords declared that that was unlawful, and a year since the Newton committee report recommended substantial changes in the terrorism legislation. It is quite wrong that those people should be held unlawfully. They are entitled to know their future, as is the House.

Mr. Hain: I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. The ruling in the House of Lords on 16 December raised a number of complex issues, and the Home Secretary, as he has explained to Parliament, needs time to consider fully the implications of the judgment, while being mindful of the need to act as quickly as possible on the matter. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find in due course that his request has been satisfied.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): I know my right hon. Friend is aware of the widespread concern among local government workers about the planned changes to the local government pension scheme, due to be introduced in April. When will we have the opportunity to debate the issue? I have been approached by many local government workers in my constituency. When will we have the opportunity to discuss the raising of the retirement age and the impact on current members of the scheme? Will the Government consider postponing the proposals until there has been more consultation?

Mr. Hain: I am sure that many local government workers and their trade union, Unison, have approached her, as they have approached me and other Members on the matter. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained that the changes coming into effect this April, as the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report, are necessary now as part of a wider package to reduce pressures on local authority budgets and thereby to help protect front-line services and keep council tax levels in 2005-06 under 5 per cent. If the changes were not implemented, local government would face increasing pension costs of about £300 million per annum over the next three years, which would mean possible cuts in services and front-line jobs and pressures on council tax levels. We all know that public sector pensions must be reformed. Indeed, we have reformed our own pensions as Members of Parliament. The changes for local government workers are part of that process.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): On the day of the inauguration of George W. Bush as President of the United States once again, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at a BBC World Service poll, which shows that the British people and the people of practically every other nation believe the world is a less safe, less secure place because of the President? Can we therefore have a debate about our special relationship to examine it, put forward the true views of the British people on that relationship and warn Americans about any future action in Iran during the President's second term?

Mr. Hain: That was a constructive intervention for the purpose of influencing American foreign policy. No doubt the hon. Gentleman does not intend to be Foreign Secretary at any stage in his future career.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Unlike you!

Mr. Hain: As always, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) makes helpful interventions and is a bit of a joker. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) raises an important point. Why has the middle east peace process—which the Prime Minister has made a priority for many months, if not years—been retriggered? In part, because of that special relationship. As a result of the Prime Minister visiting Washington and meeting President Bush very soon after his re-election, the middle east peace process suddenly entered a new dynamic phase. We need that process to succeed, and maintaining the special relationship will help it to do so.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): Setting aside the question of licensing hours, Britain has a serious alcohol problem now, and if there had been no Licensing Act 2003, it would still have a serious alcohol problem that must be addressed, with high levels of addiction, high death rates from cirrhosis of the liver, rising levels of heavy drinking among young women and, most worrying of all, a high incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a full debate on all aspects of Britain's alcohol problem, including factors such as price, advertising and health warnings on alcoholic drinks?

Mr. Hain: I know that that issue was raised in Health questions. My hon. Friend makes a serious and considered point with which I am sure we all agree. That is why the Secretary of State for Health has taken forward a plan for tackling the alcohol problem. There is a culture in this country that is almost unique among comparable countries, and is very disturbing. If one goes to France or Spain, where there is the same flexibility in licensing laws that we intend to bring in, one does not see this phenomenon: young girls, let alone young boys, are not paralytic and fighting each other on the streets. We have to work together to tackle that.

Mr. Mackay: The Leader of the House will be aware that Peter Sutcliffe is rightly incarcerated for good in my constituency. Is he also aware that there is grave concern in my constituency and in Yorkshire that the Home Secretary allowed him to leave Broadmoor hospital for a day, which is unacceptable? Can he ensure that the new Home Secretary comes to the House to explain himself, because this very bad start for him makes it clear that he is not serious about law and order and crime prevention?

Mr. Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concerns. He may wish to consult the statement that the Home Office made this morning in which the Home Secretary made the background to this matter absolutely clear.

John Cryer (Hornchurch) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern about the apparent intensification and growth of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism. Recently, as a result of the screening of "Jerry Springer—The Opera", a Christian fundamentalist group decided to publicise the names and home addresses of BBC executives. That was absolutely disgraceful. Some of those groups are keen that the blasphemy laws should be extended to cover their own particular beliefs. Some of us believe the opposite: that the existing blasphemy legislation should be abolished, if only to make it absolutely clear that we are not going to give way to these fanatics. Could we have a debate on that legislation?

Mr. Hain: I am not in favour of fundamentalism of any kind, whether Christian, Islamic or Tory. I understand my hon. Friend's point; that is why we are bringing in a new offence to ban discrimination on the grounds of religion.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): The Leader of the House will understand that not every Member of the House can be present at this statement to hear the business for the following week, and that many rely on access to the parliamentary video and data network to garner that information by e-mail or by looking at the official record. This weekend, we are to be denied access to the full facilities of that network. That will affect not only information about this business statement, but our ability to transact business on behalf of our constituents, which will be heavily constrained, if not made impossible. Will the Leader of the House postpone whatever work is to be carried out and try to find a more convenient time for it to be done, so that Members can maintain access to this vital communication network?

Mr. Hain: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman reasonably makes. I am advised that the difficulty is that the system needs an upgrade, and if it is not done sooner rather than later the problem will develop into a bigger one. It is better to do it over a weekend than during the working week. However, I will bear his comments in mind, and I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms will want to take careful note of them.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Government recently published a document called, "Iran's Nuclear Programme—a Collection of Documents". Skipping over the fact that I always thought that a collection of documents was called a dossier—perhaps we are not allowed to use that word any more—will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on that? In particular, can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the UK would give assistance to the US in relation to any military intervention in Iran, and whether the Prime Minister will make it clear to Mr. Bush after his "do" today that we will not support any such action?

Mr. Hain: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have already made it crystal clear that such action is not on the British agenda at all. In respect of the document, the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions on Tuesday.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning the statement made on RTE by an elected Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mitchel McLaughlin, that the murder of Mrs. McConville, who went out to help a British soldier who was shot and did what any woman would have done to comfort him in his last moments, was not a crime because it was sanctioned by a court martial of the IRA? Does not it further corrupt the body politic when such things go unchallenged?

Mr. Hain: Criminality and murder must be no part of a democratic future in Northern Ireland, and any groups that want to be part of that future must eliminate it from their practices and beliefs. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want to take careful note of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): May I remind the Leader of the House that on 13 October the Scrutiny Committee recommended a debate on a Commission document on the fight against fraud in the European Union, and that on 12 January the same Committee recommended a debate on another document relating to the so-called European Anti-Fraud Office? Are we failing to have those very important debates because the Government condone fraud and malpractice in the EU or because they do not care about public expenditure?

Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of this fraud, which is a scandal but has been tackled much more energetically in recent times than previously, takes place in member states rather than in Brussels. He will be aware that a debate on fraud in the European Union is taking place in Westminster Hall next Wednesday, and he will have an opportunity to make his points there.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): On the subject of our sitting hours, may I gently point out to the Leader of the House that to this particular Scottish Member it makes not a whit of difference whether we finish at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock on a Thursday, because neither time will allow me to get home on a Thursday night?

I associate myself with the call by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for a statement on the operation of Post Office card accounts, and bring to the House's attention the situation that recently faced a post office in my constituency that was flooded after the very high tides resulting from the bad weather and had its electricity supply knocked out. As a result, pensioners in that part of Orkney were unable to get their pensions because they only had access through the computer system, which was obviously not available to the post office. Surely that situation is not acceptable.

Mr. Hain: Clearly not. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to pay careful attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments and to look into the matter.

On sitting hours, I appreciate that even if we stopped at lunchtime on a Thursday, the hon. Gentleman still might not get back that evening. I am sorry, but I cannot change the geography of the Orkney islands.

Mr. Bercow: May we please have a debate in Government time on the long overdue and much needed further reform of the House of Lords? Given that a cross-party group of Members of Parliament, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), has called for a predominantly if not overwhelmingly elected Chamber—a view with which I happen to agree, as does, I suspect, the Leader of the House—does he agree that it is vital, not least in the name of self-respect, that we should have an early debate, reach a conclusion and proceed accordingly? Surely that is in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic legitimacy alike.

Mr. Hain: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point—he invited me to agree with him, and I do. I have long supported such reform of the Lords, as he acknowledged, although I am not sure how long he has supported it.

Mr. Bercow: For a long time.

Mr. Hain: That is excellent. We need to reach a conclusion not only on the composition of the Lords but on its powers. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. The proper role of the Lords is that of a revising, improving Chamber, not a vetoing Chamber on the decisions of the House of Commons, which is how it has acted for the past few years in particular.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Does the Leader of the House recall the double act by the two Chancellors—of the Exchequer and the Duchy of Lancaster—at an election poster unveiling, an event that featured all the humour but none of the charm of the Two Ronnies? May we have a statement about the use of Government cars by Ministers and their flunkies attending events of that sort, as they are evidently going to become more and more frequent in the weeks ahead?

Mr. Hain: We will add a discussion of the Short money to that debate, shall we?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rules governing these matters are very strict, and need to be observed. Anyone who has enjoyed the privilege of ministerial life is aware of that.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): May we have a debate on the state of the United Kingdom film industry? Last year only 27 films were made solely in this country and solely by UK producers, 40 per cent. fewer than last year, and a number of productions scheduled for this year have already been shelved. The main reason that has been given is a change introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the tax relief that the film industry used to enjoy. It is pointless Ministers' rubbing shoulders with the glitterati and celebs on the red carpet if they will not ensure that film producers and their technicians can shine by backing the industry.

Mr. Hain: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise if he looks into the matter in detail, a loophole was being exploited and abused. It has now been closed, but the Chancellor has also provided separate and quite proper targeted relief to support the film industry, which now enjoys the prospect of a very bright future.