Before asking for next week's business, I congratulate the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on their appointments. I suspect that the Leader's new post may be a welcome respite after holding one of the most difficult posts in Government in the past few years. It remains to be seen whether he will find it a rest after a few months of dealing with his colleagues on the Back Benches. However, I congratulate them both.

Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which we reciprocate.

Mr. Speaker, you informed the House on Tuesday of the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech. The business for next week will therefore be:

Monday 23 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Tuesday 24 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by motions to approve the Draft Tax Information Exchange Agreement (Taxes on Income) Orders 2005 relating to Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, Virgin Islands and Montserrat.

Wednesday 25 May—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by motion to approve ways and means resolutions on which a Finance Bill will be introduced.

Thursday 26 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.

Friday 27 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week after Whitsun will include:

Monday 6 June—Second Reading of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 26 May will be:

Thursday 26 May—A debate on the millennium review summit.

It may assist the House to know that, subject to the resolutions being approved by the House on 25 May, the Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 26 May.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the Commons calendar for Parliament until Christmas 2005. We plan to rise for the Whitsun recess on Thursday 26 May and return on Monday 6 June. For the summer recess, the House will rise on Thursday 21 July and return on Monday 10 October. For Christmas, we will rise on Tuesday 20 December and return on Monday 9 January. That is subject, as ever, to the standard Government health warning about the progress of business.

A copy of the new calendar is available from the Vote Office now and I encourage hon. Members to study it carefully.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the details of future business.

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had so little to say, and so little intention of including business on, global warming and this country's response to it. He will remember that, before the election, the Prime Minister said that it was the biggest issue that our country faces. It was therefore surprising to hear nothing about it in the Queen's Speech. It is obviously not on the agenda at the moment—that will come as a surprise to many people inside and outside this place.

Will the Leader of the House please give us an update on the timetable for appointing Select Committee members and Chairmen, especially in the light of the Chairmen's meeting in July, when the Prime Minister will be interviewed again? It is obviously important to get Chairmen in place before that.

When will the Bill on the European constitutional referendum be published? Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the confusion of the past 24 hours? Will the Bill contain a firm, definite and immovable date for the referendum? Will he clarify the position?

Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for the House to consider the system of ministerial appointments in this country, especially whether it should be possible for someone to receive millions of pounds from substantial Government contracts, make a major financial contribution to the Government and then become a Minister in that Government? Is not that the sort of behaviour that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have a habit of criticising vigorously when it happens in other countries?

I am sure that the Leader of the House and I share the hope that what we all do in the House during this Parliament will encourage greater interest in the democratic process. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Queen's Speech debates this week have been curtailed owing to a lack of interest and lack of willingness to speak among Labour Members? Does he believe that that is a sign of things to come?

I am surprised to hear the shadow Leader of the House complain about the lack of discussion on the important subject of global warming, given that we are about to start a debate on precisely that subject, once the business question is resolved. There will be every opportunity for Ministers and other right hon. and hon. Members to discuss the issue in the course of that debate.

It is certainly my intention to have the Select Committees up and running before the summer recess. I hope also to be able to assist the House in relation to the publication of the Bill dealing with the referendum. Exceptionally, I would like to announce that we propose to introduce it on Tuesday next, 24 May. I hope that that will be of assistance to Members in illustrating the Government's determination that there should be a referendum.

I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House knows full well that all ministerial appointments are made in accordance with the relevant rules, and there have been no exceptions whatever on this occasion.

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be greater interest in the democratic process. It is in the interest of all Members to establish ways of increasing turnout. I made the point in my acceptance speech following the announcement of the result in Ashfield that the amount of effort and energy put in by all Members to promoting democracy around the world must be matched by a similar effort so far as turnout in our own constituencies is concerned. That is a challenge for all political parties.

I am sorry to see that we seem to have reverted to the 80-day summer recess. Nothing brings us into discredit with our constituents so much as the idea—which I know is false in many cases—that we take two and a half months off in the summer. I had understood that we were to come back for a couple of weeks in September; I thought that that had been agreed some time ago. Is the suspension of the September sittings permanent or temporary? I understand that this suspension might have something to do with the fitting of a new security screen, but I would like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that we shall revert to the arrangement that I thought had been agreed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I know that the question of the September sitting is of concern to right hon. and hon. Members. This year, the specific reason for there not being a September sitting is the works that will have to be carried out in the Chamber to install a permanent security screen—my hon. Friend was right in that regard. That does not mean, however, that we have taken any particular decision as far as the future is concerned.

May I also welcome the new Leader of the House and his deputy to their posts? I am sure that, with the right hon. Gentleman's background in constitutional law, he will appreciate the importance of his role in serving the whole House. Bearing that in mind, will he give us an assurance that, next time he is in charge of the House at the time of a Queen's Speech, he will ensure that the bundle of information given to the press in advance is also available to all Members of the House?

Will the Leader of the House also refer back to the work of his predecessors on the Modernisation Committee to produce a report that recommended the establishment of a business management committee? Such a committee would provide an opportunity for the whole House to take part in the timetabling and management of the Government's Bills throughout the year. That would avoid a logjam of business during the year, and the poor scrutiny that can result from that. It might even moderate some of the opposition that Bills could face in the Lords on the ground that they have not been adequately scrutinised. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House commented on that procedure. May I conclude by saying that I hope that he will share with the House more Government secrets in his new role than he ever did in his previous one?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and, indeed, for his parting shot, if I may describe it in that way.

In regard to the point of order raised yesterday by Mr. Forth—

Right honourable!

My apologies. I asked for the information to be deposited in the Library for the information of Members at the earliest opportunity, and it is my understanding that that was done. For the benefit of the House, particularly the more technically minded Members—I do not think that that includes the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—Members might like to be reminded that information on the Queen's Speech, including detailed briefings about the Bills, is available on my website, at www.commonsleader.gov.uk. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can take the appropriate courses to allow him to access that information.

I too welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position, not just because he has been a close friend of mine for nearly 30 years—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] These things do happen. I also welcome him to his position, because—as some Conservative Members will remember from the 1990s—when he was on these Benches he showed himself to be a great respecter and user of the traditions and procedures of the House. Will he be sure to inculcate the same respect in some of his fellow Cabinet Ministers, who have not always shown the commitment that he has always shown to making announcements first and foremost from the Dispatch Box, and not outside and through the media?

I think I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I can respond in kind. When I first met the hon. Gentleman at the university of Cambridge, I had him down as a future leader of the Conservative party. I know it is a crowded field at the moment, but I am grateful for what he said and I wish him every success in his endeavours, wherever they may lead.

As for respect, it is certainly important—as I hope I made clear earlier in my response to yesterday's point of order—for all Ministers to respect the conventions of the House, and to ensure that proper information is available to all Members.

Will the Leader of the House, in his new role—which, of course, covers the whole range of Government policy—acquaint himself with the truly bizarre side-effects of the Government's policy on the capping of local authorities? Those side-effects include the capping of a council with one of the lowest council taxes in the country, Hambleton in north Yorkshire. Given the perhaps not wholly unfounded suspicion that the policy was motivated by electoral and political considerations, will the Leader of the House advise his colleagues that it can now happily be dropped, thus saving the House's time? If he will not do that, will he ensure that there is the fullest possible debate on the policy, so that its grave deficiencies can be fully exposed?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting for a moment that the policy was in any way motivated by the recent general election or the election campaign, but I give him the opportunity to confirm that. Nevertheless, it is important for the rules and the approach to be seen to be transparent, fair and objective in the case of all local authorities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept from me that that is the position.

Has the new Leader of the House had an opportunity to see a BBC weather forecast recently? If so, he may have noticed that the BBC is employing a new graphic viewing the country from the south-west of England. The land mass has expanded, the country tapers away at the top, and my constituency, which is rightly famous for having some of the most interesting and varied weather in the country, is barely visible.

Many of my constituents depend on reliable weather forecasting for their living as fishermen, farmers and crofters. Surely it is wrong for us to be excluded from BBC services in this way. Has the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport a view on the matter? If so, may we have an opportunity to hear it as part of next week's business?

I knew I was in for a treat when I was appointed to this job. One of the little-known responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Defence is, in fact, the Met Office. In the course of those responsibilities I visited the new Met Office, and saw the tremendous facilities there. I regret to say that my responsibilities did not extend to the way in which the BBC presents material supplied by the Met Office, but I am sure that the director-general of the BBC will note the hon. Gentleman's comments and take appropriate action.

Does the Leader of the House accept that it is essential for the Foreign Secretary to come here next week and make a statement on our relationship with Uzbekistan? Many of us believe that our ex-ambassador Craig Murray has been treated disgracefully by the Foreign Secretary, and that no action was taken against human rights abuses in that country. We would like the Foreign Secretary to make an apology from that Dispatch Box.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is assiduous in making statements. I have not checked the number of statements that he has made in the course of his distinguished occupancy of his position, but he has come to the Dispatch Box regularly to make them, and I am sure that if he judges it necessary, there will be a statement on Uzbekistan. He has made the British Government's position quite clear. The British ambassador visited the troubled part of Uzbekistan yesterday, and I know that the Foreign Office is awaiting a detailed report from him on what he found there.

Given his responsibilities for the House itself and for the management of business, can the Leader of the House share with us how he thinks that we can possibly scrutinise properly and effectively in excess of 45 Bills, even in an extended parliamentary Session? Does he seriously think that the House and indeed the other place can properly discharge their duties in terms of scrutiny in that time? If not, what does he propose to do about it?

As the right hon. Gentleman has conceded, this is an 18-month Session. The business managers judge that there is perfectly adequate time to get through the programme that has been announced to the House. As always, co-operation from both sides of the House is required to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of that legislation. I am absolutely confident that that proper co-operation will be forthcoming.

In welcoming the new Leader of the House to his post, may I advise him to set a trend and to establish twice-yearly debates on science and technology? This House neglects science and technology. The Minister for Science and Innovation is in the House of Lords, so we cannot question him about his work; and we live in an anti-science culture. Great issues face us such as nuclear energy, so we need to take the issue more seriously. An Adjournment debate would be warmly welcomed.

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am slightly averse to setting trends after only 20 minutes in the House doing a new job. Nevertheless, he makes a good point about the importance of science and technology. I am sure that something can be considered through the usual channels.

The Queen's Speech says:

"The Government will bring forward proposals to continue the reform of the House of Lords."

There is no mention of a Bill and no time scale. May I make a suggestion that will save us all a lot of time and trouble? At the end of the previous Parliament, a draft Bill was introduced with the support of members of all three parties. Why does not the Leader of the House just introduce that and get on with it?

Because, as the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, it is necessary for us to consider carefully the important issues. On other occasions, right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have urged the Government to take their time and to consider carefully the implications of important constitutional measures, and that is what we will do.

In presenting the Government's programme for the next 18 months, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have enough time to debate the 45 Bills that he and his colleagues wish to see on the statute book? In the previous Parliament, the Government's programme became farcical as they guillotined and prevented debate on a range of highly important public policy issues. He can make a new start and, with renewed self-confidence following his party's election to a third term in government, allow the House of Commons to do what it is supposed to do, which is to scrutinise legislation.

I do not disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman: it is important that Bills are scrutinised thoroughly. But may I gently remind him that it is the practice occasionally of Opposition Members in dealing with Bills to spend an inordinate amount of time on the first two clauses and not to devote any time to the remaining parts of the Bill? I have been on many Bills where the Opposition have done that. Indeed, in opposition, I did it. That is why it is necessary properly to consider the way in which these Bills will be considered by the House. I am confident that through the usual channels that will be the case.

Did the Leader of the House notice that, yesterday, in an excellent maiden speech, my hon. Friend David T.C. Davies drew the House's attention to the fact that the recent rebanding exercise for council tax in Wales has meant that some 40 per cent. of properties in his constituency have gone up by one band and many have gone up by two or even three? Can the Leader of the House ensure that before the summer Adjournment we have the opportunity to debate council tax revaluation, or at least rebanding, with the appropriate Minister coming to the House to explain how that will happen? In constituencies such as mine, we are fearful that that exercise will mean large numbers of our constituents will pay substantially more council tax.

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating not only David T.C. Davies on his excellent maiden speech but all new Members—those who have already made their maiden speeches and those who are about to. It is important, once elected to the House, to serve the House in the way that those who have been re-elected have always done.

I did not recognise on my last trip to Banbury that the constituency extended to Wales. I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation there. As I said earlier, there is a review of the implications of council tax, including revaluation. Obviously it is important that we allow that review to be concluded before the Government take a position on any recommendations.

Towards the end of the last Parliament, the Government accepted in the Modernisation Committee that we should be able to table written questions during the summer recess. As the Leader of the House has today announced that the summer recess will be longer than was originally planned, will he ensure that there is an opportunity for the relevant motion to be laid so that those of us who wish to hold the Government to account, even during the summer recess, have that opportunity?

The arrangements for September this year are exceptional as a result of necessary work to the Chamber. I do not intend, therefore, to make that provision on this occasion. The matter can be looked at when and if the Modernisation Committee is re-established.

May we have a statement from the Leader's successor as Defence Secretary on whether a decision has been taken in principle to build a new generation of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent? That would greatly reassure the two thirds of British people who in poll after poll, year after year, and decade after decade have felt that Britain should continue to possess nuclear weapons so long as other countries have them—although it might not reassure a number of people on Labour's Front and Back Benches.

When the hon. Gentleman referred to the Leader's successor I was for a moment a little troubled. I assure him that the matter will rightly preoccupy the House in the months and years to come. It was the subject of a great deal of debate yesterday in the Queen's Speech debate devoted to international affairs and defence. I am confident that right hon. and hon. Members will return to the subject regularly during this Parliament.

Next month will mark three years since the Government produced the draft mental health Bill, which they described as a priority. Since then it has been roundly condemned by thousands of professionals, voluntary bodies, users and, indeed, my party. The pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee produced its report in March in singularly condemning terms. Can the Leader of the House give us some indication of when the Minister will respond to that report, and tell us when we might see the final mental health Bill and whether it will take account of the enormous amount of criticism that has resulted? Given that we have not had a single debate on mental health issues in all that time, will he now provide time in this House for us to discuss this important subject?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this vital subject. Many right hon. and hon. Members take these questions seriously. The issues are hugely difficult for the country and it is right that the Secretary of State for Health should consider carefully the recommendations of the report. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's words are brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health, and I hope that we can make progress.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the Government's failure to take key strategic decisions, in particular on the full fitting-out of the St. Pancras international rail station to allow proper access to other rail and underground services? The delay is not only threatening severe inconvenience and disruption, but also suggests a lack of commitment to infrastructure in an increasingly overcrowded—at Government instigation—south-east of England. Would a debate on these failures to take key decisions set our minds at rest?

As a regular user of St. Pancras station, I can say that there has been a remarkable transformation. As a great admirer of the architecture, I am delighted that the Government have been willing to see the restoration of that fine building and of the hotel—restored, I hope, to some of its former glory. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments and I hope that he will write to the hon. Gentleman accordingly.

May we have a debate soon on England and the West Lothian question, in the light of the fact that in the election in England the Labour party received 8,045,806 votes and the Conservative party received 8,102,663 votes?

The Conservative party used to be the Conservative and Unionist party, and I assumed that it had a commitment to the constitution of the United Kingdom, which clearly allows everyone in the United Kingdom the opportunity of voting for Members of this House, and long may that continue.

Does the Leader of the House know whether the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees will consider the Queen's Speech? If they do, at least we may get some participation from members of his own party.

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am still struggling to come to terms with being Leader of this House, and I am not yet ready to answer questions on behalf of other democratically elected institutions.

I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. He will be aware that the next six weeks are vital to London's chances of hosting the 2012 Olympics. The evaluation team report is due out at the beginning of June and the decision itself comes through on 6 July. Given that cross-party support is vital to the success of the bid, will he make Government time available for a debate in this House on the London 2012 bid?

What is important—I accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's observations—is that we make early and urgent progress on the legislation that will be necessary should, as I hope, Britain be awarded the 2012 bid. It was referred to in the Queens's Speech and, exceptionally, an indication was given that it would be necessary to introduce the legislation at an early date, should we be successful. I will then obviously be looking for co-operation from the Opposition Benches to ensure that that legislation is in place as early as possible.

Given the Leader of the House's former appointment as Defence Secretary, I know that he will be as concerned as I am about the fact that it is likely that fewer than half of servicemen and servicewomen were registered to vote in the general election this year. Not only that, but those who were registered to vote in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever by post, had no opportunity to return those votes. Will he instigate an inquiry into how many people were registered to vote and how many people were able to vote, and ensure that next time an election comes up our servicemen and women in places of danger, serving this country, have the opportunity to vote properly?

This was a matter that concerned me in my previous position. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying this, I investigated some of the statistics on voting and registration that he made available to the media immediately before the general election. Unfortunately, those statistics were somewhat unreliable. It is important that all citizens have the opportunity to vote. That must include members of Her Majesty's armed forces, particularly when they are serving abroad. An enormous effort was made by the Ministry of Defence and by the chain of command to ensure that members of the armed forces took up their opportunity of registering and voting.

The Leader of the House said a moment ago that there were no exceptions to the rules relating to the appointment of Ministers. Is he aware that Lord Drayson is visiting RAF Marham in West Norfolk this week? As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said, this is someone who paid huge sums of money to Labour, received a plum contract for his company, then received a peerage, and then received a plum job in government. Is that not unfair to many hard-working Labour Members of Parliament who would love that sort of rapid promotion? Is it not an insult to those loyal and patriotic RAF service personnel?

What I find curious about the hon. Gentleman's observations is that time after time from the Opposition Benches we have had criticisms of Ministers for not having relevant business experience. Here is a man who has been an entrepreneur, and a remarkably successful business man. He has now taken on, as I know from my own experience in the Department, a responsibility that requires that business acumen, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others of his colleagues will congratulate him on having it.

May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 76, on speed cameras?

[That this House notes that the number of speed cameras has risen dramatically on UK roads; further notes that the Government itself has admitted that not all of them are appropriately placed and that motorists are increasingly frustrated that many of them are installed as a cash raising mechanism; and calls on the Government to launch a thorough review of all speed camera locations leading to the removal of cameras which do not improve road safety.]

Is it possible to arrange for a transport Minister to come to the House to state whether there will be a full review of the siting of speed cameras? He will be aware that many people believe that the cameras are there to raise money, not to reduce accidents on the roads. A number of my constituents will no doubt be opening letters today telling them that they have been nobbled for doing 36 mph in a 30-mph zone, and they will find it incongruous that a police officer could be clocked for doing 159 mph and get away with it.

I am not going to be tempted into commenting on recent court decisions, but if the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have a debate on the subject, it sounds like a perfect topic for an Adjournment debate or indeed a debate in Westminster Hall.

In warmly congratulating the Leader of the House on his appointment, may I politely urge him to seek, above all, to emulate the example of two of his predecessors—the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Robin Cook, who always handled the skill of dealing with the House in a courteous and robust fashion? If he can do as well as that, he will be doing remarkably well indeed.

Given the publication of the report of the Commission for Africa, the imperative of trade reform, the pandemic of AIDS and the overriding requirement for deep and thoroughgoing debt relief, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a decision by the Government no longer to relegate those issues to the subsidiary chamber of Westminster Hall, but rather to guarantee regular debates on motions for Adjournment on the Floor of the House, would send out a powerful signal about our seriousness of purpose and our strength of feeling on issues crucial to the future of the planet?

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Whether it is possible always to be both courteous and robust will be a matter that he will judge in the weeks and months to come. I shall certainly endeavour to represent the views of the House and to ensure that it is treated in accordance with best principles.

The Prime Minister has made clear—it was also set out in the Queen's Speech—the importance that he attaches to the issues that John Bercow has championed in the House in a number of fine speeches. I can assure him that those issues will be a priority both for the Government's handling of the G8 and of the EU. Inevitably, too, they will rightly be dealt with on the Floor of the House on a regular basis.