May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

The business for next week will be as follows. [ Interruption. ] The business for next week will be Members of Parliament engaging with their constituents. The business for the week beginning 1 June will be as follows:

Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords].

Tuesday 2 June—Second Reading of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [ Lords].

Wednesday 3 June—There will be a general debate on stroke services, following which the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Thursday 4 June—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on defence in the world.

The provisional business for the week commencing 8 June will include:

Monday 8 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill [ Lords].

I would also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 4, 11 and 18 June will be:

Thursday 4 June—A debate on road safety.

Thursday 11 June—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee entitled "Policing for the 21st century".

Thursday 18 June—A debate on the report from the Environmental Audit Committee on personal carbon trading.

May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the business for the week after next and thereafter? May I also say that the House will be pleased that the Home Secretary is to make a statement on the Government's decision on the Gurkhas? Many will wait with serious interest to hear what she will say shortly.

I think that all Members recognise that the events of the past few weeks have profoundly shaken the House. The outpouring of fury that we have witnessed has been almost like a spring revolution, but I believe it is a hope shared by all of us that it will make us think deeply about how this place works and provide us with the opportunity to begin a new chapter for Parliament. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that even if we succeed in sorting out some of our immediate problems, there is a much deeper malaise in our system of politics that needs to be addressed, and we need to discuss that in the House. The truth is that the House has been sidelined for years; it struggles to keep pace with the speed of events; in its primary duty of scrutinising the Executive, it often fails; law is rammed on to the statute book through a vexatious use of timetabling; and too few people, both inside and outside, have faith in, or even understand, its processes. With the public clamour for reform now at its loudest for years, will the right hon. and learned Lady agree to an extensive series of debates so that some of the most serious and thorough arguments can be aired inside the House, not just outside it?

My understanding of the outcome of meetings held recently to discuss the policing of the vicinity of Parliament is that what is required to cut through the legal muddle that governs this is a short Bill that will abolish bits of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and then submit Parliament square and the vicinity once again to the power of a perhaps amended public order Act. Will the right hon. and learned Lady make a statement urgently on her plans to take action and tell the House when and how she might introduce the necessary legislation to solve this continuing problem?

Will the right hon. and learned Lady reflect on the timing of the defence debate, which at the moment is scheduled for 4 June, which is the day of the local and European elections? Surely it cannot be right that on the day that the nation's attention is directed to the polling booth, the House is expected to debate all the serious challenges that face us, from conflict in Afghanistan to piracy off Somalia. Does she not agree that it is unacceptable to downgrade defence matters in this way? May I respectfully ask her to consider whether she can reschedule that debate?

May we also have a statement on what appears to be the mismatch between the Government's claims and the actual facts surrounding the potential purchase of Eurofighter Typhoon jets for the RAF? That was spun by the Prime Minister as a done deal for the United Kingdom, but it has since become clear that not only is there no firm commitment for a third batch of the aircraft, but there are also huge question marks over the ensuing support costs. I have raised before the unwillingness of Ministers to provide the House with a statement on the Government's delay of the carrier programme, and once again it does rather seem that the Secretary of State for Defence is declining to come to the House to face serious questions on a procurement issue of such vital strategic significance. May we now be assured that he will do so?

On the subject of procurement, may we have a debate or a statement on the Government's guidance on procurement decisions and policy for the 2012 Olympics? One of the benefits of having the Olympics in London is that large contracts are up for grabs that many businesses can rightly try to take advantage of. We appreciate that there are European tendering rules, but is the right hon. and learned Lady aware that some small British firms have been prevented even from bidding for contracts following the constricted tendering criteria established by the Government? Does she not agree that it is unfortunate that, in the middle of the worst recession that this country has seen for decades, some small and medium-sized enterprises feel excluded from what should be a significant and merited commercial opportunity?

May I take this opportunity to offer you, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. and learned Lady and the House a happy—I should say happier—Whitsun recess? Perhaps we need to remember—the Deputy Leader of the House is an expert on these matters—that we are meant to be celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire and inspiration. We are all in need of a bit of inspiration at the moment, and perhaps as a result we can all once again harness those flames to become apostles for a better working democracy.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments. He referred to the statement on the Gurkhas, and although people may say that Parliament has no power, the Gurkhas debate and the vote of the House to which the Government are responding, is a significant example of the will of the House impressing itself on the Government.

Bearing in mind that there is a big debate in the country, the hon. Gentleman rightly asked when the House will have an opportunity to play its part in the important debate about how we rethink the relationship between Parliament and the people. Following on from all the action that has been taken and looking to the future, we will find opportunities for the House to debate those wider issues. But I would not want him or anyone else to lose sight of the important changes that have already been made. Looking back over the past 10 years, the people of Scotland have been given the right to choose whether they have their own Parliament and the right to elect their Parliament. The people of London have been given the right to have a mayor that they elect themselves.

People have been given the right to more information through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and their rights have been given more protection through the Human Rights Act 1998. In the House, debates and questions are more up to date, because we have topical debates and topical questions. We should see the current situation as an opportunity to build on the progress that we have made; I do not think that we should say, "The whole system has not been improving and therefore we need to start afresh." We should rebuild the trust and confidence in Parliament that have been battered by the issue of allowances, and take this as an opportunity to make further progress. Parliament, as a whole, will need to be at the centre of those debates, and I shall ensure that we make that time available.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the policing of Parliament square, and he will know that, last week, Mr. Speaker convened a meeting of all responsible authorities. The Government stand ready to take any action that arises from the meeting not only to assist the right to demonstrate but to enable freedom of movement in the square for tourists, passers-by and, indeed, parliamentarians.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a number of defence issues, Eurofighter among them. We have Defence questions on the Monday that we return from the recess, we had a defence procurement debate recently and, as he pointed out, there will be a defence debate during the week that we return. The day in question is a sitting day, and it is always difficult when the House is sitting and the nation is voting in elections to a body other than Parliament. The forthcoming elections are important, so we did not seek to put on whipped business. That was not done with any disrespect to the important issues of defence, and there will be future opportunities to debate defence, which we know is always an important consideration for the House.

On the question of the Olympics, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to the Minister for the Olympics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that capital investment from the public sector provides important commercial opportunities, and that is why we believe that Conservative party proposals to cut public capital investment would create problems because there would be a great deal fewer commercial opportunities all round.

On 30 April, Mr. Speaker, you gave me the opportunity to have a debate on the Adjournment of the House, after Visteon closed its three UK manufacturing plants, leaving workers in Basildon, Enfield and Belfast with no jobs, no redundancy settlement and fearful for their pensions. May I update you, Mr. Speaker? Following the debate that you allowed, a campaign by Unite and help from the Ford motor company, those workers now have their redundancy settlements and, on Monday this week, were able to leave the picket lines having achieved their aims on being made redundant.

Following my research into the issue, however, it became clear that the company's closure had nothing at all to do with the recession; it had never, ever made a profit. Indeed, it has come to light that companies are using the recession as a way of changing the terms and conditions of their staff, even when those firms have not been affected by the recession. Will the Leader of the House join me in raising that issue with all Ministers? Furthermore, does she think it an appropriate matter that the House should debate?

I shall raise my hon. Friend's comments with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I pay tribute to her work in defending those who worked at Visteon in her constituency. When companies face difficult times, whether because of the recession or for any reason, it is important that they work closely with the trade unions, which represent the workers whose fate is obviously tied up with that of the company. I pay tribute to Unite and its work in protecting the Visteon workers. We, of course, have created a wider package of assistance for the automotive industry, as well as introduced provisions to allow all companies to defer their tax to help with cash flow, provided tax credits for those on short-time working and support for apprenticeships.

May I also welcome in anticipation the Home Secretary's statement on the Gurkhas? I hope that it will say what we all hope it will say: that the Government accept the will of the House. I look forward to a similar statement eventually on Equitable Life, so that we repay that debt of honour, too.

I am glad that Angela E. Smith raised economic issues in her constituency, because while we concentrate on what we are doing in this House we must not forget that there is an awful recession going on out there. People are losing their jobs, houses and livelihoods; we must make space for deliberations on that important issue.

Given the difficulties that we have all had in recent weeks, may I express my thanks to all the staff, families and spouses of Members of Parliament? They are getting criticism that is often entirely unjustified in respect of the MP with whom they are associated, and they are having to deal with abusive letters and phone calls. They have no part in what Members of this House have done, and we owe them a debt of thanks.

Or what Members have not done.

That is absolutely right; I thought that I had made that plain.

I echo what the shadow Leader of the House said about the opportunity that we now have to do something of greater importance for the House; I hope that we will set aside time to do it in the next few weeks. We have a light legislative programme. We have the opportunity to debate what the right hon. and learned Lady herself said yesterday was set to change and strengthen our democracy. That means that we need to look at how we do things in the House. For example, 99 clauses of the Policing and Crime Bill were never debated. That is not the way to scrutinise legislation. We must find ways to use our time effectively and rebalance the relationship between the House and the Executive. We must find time to debate the changing of our constitutional arrangements, because there is unfinished business. The right hon. and learned Lady says that things have been done, and that is true. However, there is the unfinished business of House of Lords reform, party funding and the size of both Houses. We need to debate those issues.

Lastly, we need time to change our democratic processes, reinforce accountability and make the House more representative of the people whom we serve. If we use our time in that way, the country will realise that the House still has relevance and a determination to change for the better.

This morning, people will have heard from both sides of the House that we all agree that the allowances situation should be sorted out right away and that we should seize the opportunity to strengthen the role of Parliament in our democracy. That makes this a very important moment. It is important to deal with the problems, but we also have this moment of opportunity, which we should seize on behalf of the House.

The hon. Gentleman said, airily, that we have had a light legislative programme, but that is not the case. I have just announced the Second Reading of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill and of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. Furthermore, the Health Bill has been announced this week, and we have just discussed the Policing and Crime Bill and the Equality Bill. I do not think it right to say that there is a light legislative programme; we are debating and scrutinising important issues.

I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments about House of Commons staff and the families of Members. Everybody wants us to sort the situation out and everybody will be glad when we have. The hon. Gentleman talked about Equitable Life. As he will know, earlier this week there was a debate on Equitable Life; the Minister updated the House on where we are in respect of action on that issue. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Hansard report of that debate.

On the reform of parliamentary allowances, my right hon. and learned Friend has often repeated that we do not want the House to be filled only with the rich—or, I would add, only with the sponsored. Does she agree that at some point soon, when, hopefully, things calm down, we might all benefit from reflecting on one of the initiatives announced in Mr. Speaker's statement on Monday? I am thinking of the cap on mortgage interest rate and rental claims at £1,250 per month, with the intention that that be reduced in future. Does that not risk putting staying overnight in London beyond the reach of most people, thereby putting off the chances of citizens of this country who wish to become Members of the House?

Two very important points arise from what my hon. Friend says. First, we all regard the constituency link as extremely important. When people are elected to represent their constituency, they need to be able to keep in close touch with their constituency and also to work in the House of Commons, which means that they need to be able to live in two places at once. The constituency link is very important, and the Kelly committee will strongly bear that in mind. I should add that there is an opportunity for all individual Members to give evidence to Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

My hon. Friend also reinforces the point that we do not want to turn the clock back to previous centuries when more or less only landowners and the landed gentry were in Parliament. We do not want to have a Parliament just for millionaires: we need to ensure that we have our own equivalent of "From Log Cabin to White House" and that anybody can come into the House of Commons.

Will the Leader of the House grant us an early debate on how we can curtail the powers of local councils to fulfil the house building targets by seeking planning permission to build in the territory of other local authorities? That possibility arises in my constituency, where Luton and South Bedfordshire council is planning to meet its housing totals by building houses in my constituency. To make matters worse, it plans to do so in the most beautiful area known as, eponymously and anatomically, Lilley Bottom.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can raise that directly with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government during the Second Reading of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill on Monday 1 June.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that this is the 30th anniversary of the introduction of Select Committees? Ten years ago, when Lord Sheldon, as he now is, chaired the Liaison Committee, he introduced a piece of work called "Shifting the Balance", which tried to shift the balance away from the Executive and back to the legislature. Could we have an early debate on that topic? I speak as someone who tried to participate in last night's debate in the Chamber, when we saw once again the domination of the Front Benchers, who not only made long speeches but then intervened afterwards, with Back Benchers' contributions to the debate squeezed almost to nothing. Is it not about time that we had a shift in the balance of power in the Chamber?

Everyone has agreed that one of the things that strengthens the role of Parliament is the work of Select Committees and that of hon. Members who chair them and play a part in them. I feel absolutely certain that as we look to strengthening people's confidence in how this House scrutinises the Executive, the role of Select Committees is set to be strengthened once again.

In supporting the shadow Leader of the House, the Liberal Democrat shadow Leader of the House and Mr. Sheerman, does the Leader of the House consider it to be the appropriate time to make this Parliament—this Palace of Westminster, particularly this House of Commons—more relevant? Is it not time that we looked again at programming, and at setting up a business committee of representative Back-Bench Members, who would be elected by this House, perhaps under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means, as well as considered the merging of the Modernisation Committee with the Procedure Committee? That would make this House more powerful, give it credibility and increase its integrity.

The hon. Gentleman and others are taking the opportunity to set forth the items that will need to be considered in more detail as we look to strengthen the House in future. No doubt the Procedure Committee and the work of the business managers will be considered as part of that process.

Today's edition of The Times reports that despite the desperate conditions in Sri Lanka, the last remaining independent organisation, the International Committee of the Red Cross, is leaving the country because it cannot get access to the refugee camps. About 300,000 civilians are injured, maimed and starving, and their Government are not allowing in international aid to help them. I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend in terms of the issues on which she has concentrated in her political life. It is reported today that 25 per cent. of young mothers and those expecting children are seriously malnourished. Does she agree that we desperately need a debate in the House on that matter?

I know that many of my hon. Friend's constituents are of Tamil origin. The House remains deeply concerned about this issue, which has been raised in the House on many occasions, including on 29 and 30 April and in May. We remain deeply concerned about current events, and our primary concern is the immediate humanitarian crisis. As she will know, on Sunday the Prime Minister announced an additional £5 million in humanitarian funding, which the Department for International Development will allocate to assist the civilians displaced in the continued fighting.

On Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, you granted yet another debate in Westminster Hall on Equitable Life. That debate, like previous debates, was full of Back Benchers from all parts of the House who supported the parliamentary ombudsman's proposals; the only person to defend the Government was the Minister who spoke at the end. In debating how to strengthen our democracy, can we consider a proposal that will allow items to get on to the agenda and provide for votes on issues that are of widespread concern and have support from Back Benchers across the House?

Of course, there are already Opposition day debates, but yes, I am sure that that suggestion will be part of the wider debate.

Yesterday a petition signed by 22,500 people was taken to No. 10 Downing street asking the Department of Health and the Government to set up a national centre for asbestos-related diseases. May we have a debate in this House about how we can improve the care given to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases, particularly those who have been criminally and negligently exposed to asbestos at work?

Perhaps that should be the subject of a Westminster Hall debate. It is an important issue not only for the Department of Health but for ministerial colleagues with health and safety responsibilities at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I will ask them to write to my hon. Friend.

As the situation in Zimbabwe is still grave despite the power-sharing Government, and as there will be some very tricky, delicate decisions to be made on when is the appropriate time to increase aid, does the Leader of the House think that it would be a good idea for the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement when we return after the recess?

I will ask the Secretary of State to consider that proposition. I will also consider whether it might be a good idea to ask the Minister for Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, to invite Members of this House to have an opportunity to be briefed by him. That would not be instead of a statement, but it is always useful for him to keep Members updated informally.

Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a full and frank discussion on the activities of the banks? Like many Members of this House, I have been briefed by local businesses, and it is clear that banks are changing their lending policies—overnight overdrafts are costing more, and lending is being seriously reduced. I was briefed by a vehicle hire company in my constituency called Reflex and, quite frankly, if such banking activity continues, it will close that company. We need that company and other excellent companies to remain open, vibrant and employing at this time. The House needs to pool all its experience and discuss this issue, and the banks need to be seriously challenged by Government.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She will know that the Treasury Committee has gone through these issues in great detail, and that the Prime Minister responded on this very point yesterday in Prime Minister's Question Time.

May I associate myself with calls from both sides of the House for a debate on the relationship between Parliament and the Executive?

May we please have a debate in Government time on the Floor of this House on special educational needs? Given that it is now almost three years since the then Education and Skills Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Sheerman, called for a breaking of the link between the assessment of need and the funding of provision, and, on top of that, that this year, at Government request, Ofsted is to conduct a detailed inquiry into the provision of education of children with SEN, is it not now timely for this House to consider how best to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our country?

I shall take up the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for the work that he has done, which is not only important to his constituents but of concern to Members of all parties. I shall look for an opportunity to take those issues forward in the way that he suggests.

On Saturday 20 June in London, there will be a march for justice for the Hillsborough victims and their families. The Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary have already said it is important that we get out information relating to the Hillsborough disaster, but of course the matter also affects other Departments. Will my right hon. and learned Friend use her good offices to remind other Departments of the statements made by the Culture Secretary and the Home Secretary about identifying information relating to the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath and making it available as soon as possible?

I will back up the point that my hon. Friend has made and take those issues to the relevant Departments. Perhaps he could let me know via my office which other Departments, in addition to those of the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary, need to consider what information they can produce.

There is an extremely controversial planning application in my constituency on the edge of the Dedham Vale area of outstanding natural beauty, which would have a severe impact on that area. Could time be found for us to debate the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and is it possible that we could have a debate on how that particular application can be called in for a public inquiry?

There were questions to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers this morning, and the hon. Gentleman would probably have got a more global answer from them, but there will be Communities and Local Government questions coming up in the week we return from the recess.

May we have a debate on consumer rights? Companies such as ActionCOACH seduce people into parting with their savings or redundancy payments on the pretence that they will get large returns. That invariably does not happen, and many people lose significant amounts of money. Should companies such as ActionCOACH not have to be transparent about their claims of a proven track record of success and a reasonable return for investors?

My hon. Friend is talking not about red tape or burdens on business but about essential protection for consumers, and I shall bring that matter to the attention of the Minister responsible for consumer affairs.

May we have an urgent debate on the process by which wind farm applications are approved? Everyone knows that the Government have failed in their promotion of renewables, but can it be right that they can routinely overturn the decisions of local councillors, parishes and people to oppose certain applications? Can she understand the anger and frustration of my constituents who see their local environment altered and their views ignored?

There was a debate yesterday about how the House will handle the process of national policy statements, and there will be Energy and Climate Change questions the week the House returns, when I suggest the hon. Gentleman raise those points.

Yesterday, on the day after world hepatitis day, the Government made a written statement on Lord Archer's report about contaminated blood. Although I congratulate the Government on moving forward on this issue, what most angered the community that is interested in the subject yesterday was that the Government are still not prepared to match the modest compensation scheme that is available in the Irish Republic. To give us a chance to question Health Ministers, which we were unable to do yesterday, will my right hon. and learned Friend please give us a debate in Government time on contaminated blood?

I think that may be a very appropriate subject for a Westminster Hall debate. I shall raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Health. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there was a written ministerial statement responding to Lord Archer's report. He will know that we have increased the amount of compensation for those who have been unfortunate enough to receive contaminated blood, and we have increased the amount of funding that goes to the important work of the Haemophilia Society. We will further review the situation in respect of those who have contracted hepatitis.

On the last day of term, may I appeal for a debate during the forthcoming term on prejudice against Christians in a growing proportion of the public services? On top of a string of incidents involving health service and local authority workers being penalised for offering to pray for people, for saying "God bless" to them and so on, the worst case of all must be that of the foster mother who had fostered a large number of children in care and provided a loving home for them, but who lost her job and with it her house because a 16-year-old girl she was fostering chose to convert to Christianity. May I urge the Leader of the House to consider this a worthy subject for a debate in the House?

I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to the relevant Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. This is really just a matter of basic good practice and common sense. There is nothing in any law or guidance that requires people to act daft.

We have made considerable progress on allowances this week, but we still need a lot more debate about the different roles that Members have to fulfil, including having caring responsibilities for children—both men and women have those responsibilities—and for elderly parents. Can we not use this as an opportunity to consider the role of Members as a whole? Would not a way of strengthening democracy be to ensure that we have a range of people here who are able to bring their experiences to our debates?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have in this House people such as herself, who know what it is to balance the responsibility of going to work and doing an important job with that of bringing up children and caring for elderly relatives. That is the situation for most families in our constituencies, and it is right that that should be reflected in the House. Any changes that we make must not undermine the ability of people with family responsibilities to play their part in the House. That is important, as are the constituency link, not having people doing second jobs and the point that we must not make this exclusively a millionaire's club.

Does the Leader of the House realise that despite the Prime Minister's commitment to ensure that Parliament properly scrutinises the Executive, she risks going down in history as the Leader of the House under whom more clauses of Government Bills than ever have gone through without proper scrutiny by the House? That has been the case with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill and now the Policing and Crime Bill—earlier this week 72 Government amendments to this last were not even reached and debated before being pushed through.

When several hon. Members raised this matter last week at business questions, the Leader of the House promised that there would be consultations and discussions about the programme motion so that we would not have the ridiculous situation that did indeed come about. We had 43 minutes to debate critical amendments on DNA and 29 minutes on gang violence, yet by all accounts there were no discussions or consultations beyond those with just the Conservative Front Benchers. How can we believe that she intends to do something about this if her Government cannot deliver on commitments that she makes to the House at business questions?

I do not think that there were discussions only with those on the Conservative Front Bench. It might well be the case that even when there are discussions and consultations agreement cannot be reached, but that does not mean that those discussions were not had. Before the hon. Gentleman attributes to me my historic role as Leader of the House, I have to say that there is always difficulty in getting the balance right between different aspects of Government business and the House's debates. I shall check out whether he is right in his assertion. I point out that we had two very important, indeed historic, statements from you, Mr. Speaker, on the day of the debates on the Policing and Crime Bill.

On 30 May 1929, women under the age of 30 were able to vote in a general election for the first time. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend and all honourable colleagues who will be involved in the debates on the reform of the House to reflect on the fact that, 80 years after that event, despite making up more than half the population, women still account for only a little over a fifth of the Members of this place?

In response to Dr. Harris, I would say that most ordinary people would think that a sitting that lasts 36 hours and goes through the night, with four hours for sleep, as happened on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, constitutes thorough scrutiny.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the continued role of women in our democracy—not only in being allowed to vote but in being representatives in the House. That is why the Speaker's Conference and its proposals will be important, as will the Equality Bill, which allows all-women short lists to continue. I ask the official Opposition to reconsider their opposition to that measure.

To encourage recycling, many local authorities are issuing wheelie bins to their residents—sometimes one, two or three per household. However, in north Northamptonshire, there is a growing problem of their being set alight, with catastrophic and, sadly, fatal consequences. May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on how that growing menace can be tackled?

It is important that councils work with the local community and the police to tackle antisocial behaviour. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be Communities and Local Government questions the week the House returns.

The Government are acting daft in closing a hospital out-patient facility in my constituency, and more than a quarter of the households in Rushden have written to me about the cut. I want to lead a mass demonstration about it on Parliament square. Will the Leader of the House issue a statement about when I can hold that mass demonstration?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to hold a mass demonstration, or even a very small one, around Parliament, he needs to apply to the appropriate authorities. Perhaps he will join us in our support for increased investment in the health service. Far from a cut in investment, there will be a 5.3 per cent. increase this year. That is necessary investment for the future. When he is asked to support the Conservative party in cutting capital and revenue investment in our public services, I hope he will think again and join us.

The House should recognise the huge sacrifices that Pakistan is making now and will make in future to tackle extremism. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost. May we have a debate on what more the UK and the international community can do actively to support Pakistan and help it emerge as a stronger nation, including establishing a much improved trade agreement with the EU and rapid disbursement of the £12 million that the Prime Minister promised Pakistan to help with internally displaced people?

The hon. Gentleman's points are important and I strongly agree that they affect not only those overseas but communities in this country. We have had the important Intelligence and Security Committee report, and the issue that he raises might be a good idea for a topical debate in the near future.