Committee on Standards (Reports)

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) and to pay tribute to his work and that of his Committee. I believe that both the motions before us, if agreed, will serve to increase confidence, inside and outside the House, in the regulatory system that we work under.

Let me deal first with the motion relating to the standards system in the House. I pay tribute not only to the Committee but to the sub-Committee, which did a lot of work on this. I particularly commend its lay members, who led the review, for the production of a thoughtful and balanced report. The report proves the value of including an outside perspective at the heart of our self-regulatory system. That, in itself, makes the case for broadening that outside perspective. These matters—the design and application of the standards system—are, of course, for the House collectively. The Government are fully supportive of the efforts of the Standards Committee and others to secure a system that is transparent, clear and effective. I believe that the motion is consistent with this objective.

The Government support the maintenance of an independent parliamentary commissioner for standards with the discretion to accept or reject a complaint for investigation, as she sees fit. It is right that a complete separation be maintained between the investigation of a complaint by the commissioner and the Committee’s role in considering her report and recommending any sanctions to the House. I am pleased that the Committee did not recommend a new adversarial procedure with lengthy and legalistic procedures. That would not have served the interests of the House or its Members, or improved its reputation in the eyes of the public.

The Committee’s most striking recommendation, as the right hon. Gentleman discussed, is the increase in the number of lay members from three to seven—the same as the number of MPs on the Committee. He told us how much of an asset it has been to have the services of the three lay members. Quite apart from the value they bring to the Committee from their differing backgrounds and experiences, their presence provides an effective answer to those who criticise the standards system on the grounds that it is Members judging each other. The achievement of a balance of external and internal members of the Committee will serve to provide it with a wider range of views and greater authority in this House, and, I hope, create greater confidence in the system outside this place.

It was notable that the lay members did not see the need to have a vote to be an effective presence on the Committee. The report explains that the

“existing position of the lay members is strong, contrary to some external portrayal.”

We have to be guided by the Committee on this point. It is difficult to imagine that it will want to publish reports with which its lay members disagree. However, the ability of lay members to record a contrary view is an important part of the present system that will be enhanced in the new one. Making lay members full members of the Committee would have introduced an element of legal uncertainty into its proceedings, as has been set out by the Procedure Committee and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

The one recommendation directly for the Government relates to the scheduling of reports for debate. The Committee recommends that debates should take place within two months of the publication of reports. The Government have been very responsive in scheduling debates on the Committee’s reports on the conduct of individual Members. The conclusions of reports of this nature have always been brought before the House within a matter of days. I believe that any Government in the next Parliament will want to continue to bring forward substantive reports on the conduct of Members that require a decision of the House at the earliest available opportunity. I would certainly recommend that to my successor.

I am pleased that the Committee plans to take on a wider role in the promotion of ethical conduct of Members of Parliament, drawing on best professional practice and the experiences of other legislatures. The new lay members of the Committee, when appointed, will give this role added resonance. The House can look forward to the Committee’s role developing further in the new Parliament.

I turn briefly to the second motion, on the code of conduct for Members and the guide to the rules. I am very pleased to be able to bring this issue before the House before Dissolution. It is important that Members elected to the new Parliament be subject to a clear code of conduct that they can read as soon as they are elected, and that they have the benefit of a guide to the rules that is fully up to date. I am particularly pleased that by updating and improving the guide to the rules, we can implement the outstanding recommendations of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption in so far as they relate to the House of Commons. The successful passage of the Government’s Recall of MPs Bill also meets its recommendations for disciplinary sanctions that are proportionate and dissuasive.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On the code of conduct, the Leader of the House will be aware of the controversy in recent days about whether a Minister adequately explained having a second job. Does he feel that the Government now need to revisit the ministerial code of conduct so that Ministers, such as the Minister without Portfolio, have clearer guidance on what they should or should not declare?

[Mr Hague]

My immediate answer is no. Those rules are clear. The Minister concerned has said that he spoke in error, and I do not think there has been any suggestion that he broke the rules.

I believe that the updating of the guide to the rules is uncontroversial, and it should be supported by the House. The wording of the code of conduct has proved quite a difficult nut to crack during this Parliament. The debate in March 2012 revealed disquiet in some quarters of the House—let me put it that way—about how the code could be interpreted. That resulted in an amendment that, in the Committee’s view, led to a disconnect between the powers of the commissioner to investigate certain complaints and the provisions of the code.

As Leader of the House, I have been conscious of the need to secure a high degree of consensus on the code’s wording and interpretation before putting it before the House for a decision. That has taken a little more time than we all wished, but I hope and believe that we have got there in the end. The Members who have taken the time to do that have shown a good deal of forbearance, but that was the right approach. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley for his perseverance in chairing his Committee on this matter, and to colleagues from across the House for their co-operation. That is why there has been a delay in holding this debate, but we have been able to have it before the end of the Parliament.

I hope and believe that this debate will illustrate consensus on the wording. The new code proposed by the Standards Committee strikes the right balance between respect for the private life of Members and our obligation to uphold the code in all aspects of our public lives. I hope that the code will command the confidence of the public. On that basis, I am very happy to support the motions.

VE Day (70th Anniversary)

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Written Statements

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

I would like to inform the House of plans to commemorate the 70th anniversary of VE Day. On VE Day in 1945 millions of people across the UK and abroad, shared a sense of relief and euphoria that the war in Europe was over. The 70th anniversary is an opportunity to remember the sacrifice and sheer determination of the people who saw us through this dark period, give thanks to all those who so bravely played their part and celebrate peace and reconciliation. The three days of events will commence on Friday 8 May at 1500, the moment Sir Winston Churchill made his famous speech declaring that the war in Europe was over. There will be a national two minute silence followed by a Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph, with wreaths laid in tribute, including by representatives of veteran organisations. Schools will be taking part in a range of activities. In the evening, a chain of beacons will be lit across the UK to mark the transition from remembrance to celebration. On Saturday 9 May, cathedrals, churches and others will ring bells, ships will sound their horns and in the evening there will be a live commemorative concert broadcast from Horse Guards Parade. Central London will reflect the spirit of VE Day with flags flying and illumination of landmarks; from Trafalgar Square, along the Mall, Whitehall and in Parliament Square. On Sunday 10 May, there will be a Service of Thanksgiving in Westminster Abbey and later, military and civilian veterans and their representatives will parade through Whitehall. In the afternoon there will be a reception for the veterans and a flypast by aircraft, including the Spitfire and the Lancaster. Throughout the weekend communities and families will bring the commemorations to life in the way which is most meaningful for them, whether this is a picnic in the park, a street party, exhibitions or formal receptions. The programme of events will be staged in partnership with a large number of organisations, including the Royal British Legion, and I thank them in advance for their passion and commitment to making VE Day 70 a success. I hope as many people as possible of all ages and from all walks of life will take the opportunity to reflect on, and mark, this important anniversary in our history and give thanks to those that contributed so much.

[HCWS416]

Business of the House

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your remarks about the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry)?

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

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

Mr Speaker, may I, too, associate myself with your remarks about my right hon. Friend?

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 16 March—Motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by a motion to approve the draft Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, followed by opposed private business which the Chairman of Ways and Means has named for consideration.

Tuesday 17 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill, followed by a debate on motions relating to the reports from the Committee on Standards on the code of conduct and on the standards system in the House of Commons, followed by a debate on a motion relating to Shaker Aamer. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 18 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 19 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 20 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 March will include:

Monday 23 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 24 March—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Recall of MPs Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter-terrorism.

Wednesday 25 March—All stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

Thursday 26 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by an opportunity for Members to make short valedictory speeches, as recommended by the Backbench Business Committee. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the shadow Leader of the House, it might be helpful for the House if I say this: the Leader of the House has just announced that the Backbench Business Committee debate to be held on the morning of Thursday 26 March is intended to give retiring Members an opportunity to make a short valedictory speech. I gather that there will be many retiring Members who wish to take part and, inevitably, the time will be constrained. I therefore draw their attention to the opportunity offered by the four-day Budget debate, also just announced for Wednesday 18, Thursday 19, Friday 20 and Monday 23 March, in which my colleagues and I are minded to permit some latitude to retiring Members wishing to make valedictory remarks, although without any derogation from any time limits that may be in place.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the remainder of the Parliament. In the blizzard of last-minute statutory instruments that have appeared on the Order Paper, the Registration of Consultant Lobbyists Regulations 2015 were laid on 26 February. Despite the Prime Minister’s pre-election pledge to shine the light of transparency on lobbying, it is expected that the new register will cover just 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists and would not have stopped any of the lobbying scandals that have hit the Government. We are committed to an effective register of all professional lobbyists, backed by a code of conduct and sanctions, so we will pray against these regulations. Will the Leader guarantee us time for a debate on them?

The Government have a clear track record of avoiding scrutiny. On the European arrest warrant, on the Agricultural Wages Board and now on plain packaging of cigarettes, instead of trying to win the argument, they just try to avoid having it altogether. Last week, the Leader of the House rejected my request for a debate on plain packaging on the Floor of the House, and this week we can see why. A majority of Tory MPs failed to vote in favour of this common-sense measure to protect public health, including eight Ministers, three members of the Cabinet and even the Tory deputy Chief Whip. This morning, an analysis by The Independent has revealed that one in four MPs who voted against have declared links to the tobacco industry. Does it not say everything about today’s Tory party that a majority of its MPs is more interested in the rights of global tobacco companies than the health of Britain’s children? Is not the Prime Minister’s refusal to defend his record in the TV debates symptomatic of this Government? Instead of trying to win the argument, they just run away from it.

Next week, we will have the charade of the Chancellor’s pre-election Budget, which will reportedly contain large chunks of the Tory manifesto. Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us whether both parties of Government have signed up to it? It is clear that the real omnishambles is this Chancellor’s record. He has broken every promise and missed every target he has ever set himself on the economy. For the first time in nearly 100 years working people are worse off at the end of a Parliament than they were at the beginning. Not only would Tory plans cut public spending back to pre-war levels, the reality would be extreme and dangerous cuts of up to £70 billion.

The Prime Minister is an expert at evading scrutiny and the Chancellor yet again excused himself from Treasury questions this week, but I am sure that, as an honourable man, the Leader of the House will be willing to answer some simple questions. To meet their target, is it not the case that a Tory Government would have to cut spending on day-to-day public services by significantly more than they will admit? Is it not the case that to meet their target they will have to either raise VAT or cut the NHS? Is it not right that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) was speaking for growing numbers in the Conservative party when he said that he did not agree with protecting the NHS budget? Is it not also the case that Tory plans would mean that we would have the smallest police force since records began and the smallest Army since Cromwell?

There are only nine more days of this Parliament and I can see that the Leader of the House is eagerly counting them down. He has led his party, he has toured the world, he has become best mates with Angelina Jolie. However, in a rather disappointing end to his glittering career it seems that Conservative party headquarters has got him doing its e-mails. This week, in a message to Tory Members, he warned of the dangers of entering government on the coat tails of a small party that does not keep its promises. He should know quite enough about that already.

It has not been a good week for the Liberal Democrats either. They have been embroiled in a cash-for-access scandal, but the country is mainly just in shock that anyone wants to donate any money to them at all. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has apparently been sending leaflets out in his constituency that spell the word “failure” incorrectly. I would have thought that every single Liberal Democrat would know how to spell that word. Lord Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and the man in charge of their campaign, declared on the radio this morning that he was going to be very busy during the general election campaign and that he doubted he would get to do any campaigning. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.”

Things are looking bad for the Prime Minister, too. His latest ploy to escape the scrutiny of the TV debates was to say that radio hosts can grill him “as hot as they like”. Mr Speaker, I prefer a long slow burn. There are just eight weeks to go until the general election and the only person from Chipping Norton who has come out fighting has just been suspended by the BBC.

[Mr Hague]

I think the reference to a long slow burn was a reference to the shadow Chancellor’s personal life, although I think we can be confident that it would be a very rapid and immediate crash if he were to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going to join the hon. Lady in making fun of my Liberal Democrat colleagues—I am going to wait for election night. [Laughter.] There will be a moment for all of us to join in that. I have enjoyed working with them immensely. It has been one of the high points of all the things I have done in my career to be able to work with them in government over the past five years. I will certainly continue to send out e-mails to people about the dangers of the coming together in government of a party that wants to bankrupt the country with a party that wants to break up the country. That is the real threat.

The hon. Lady asked about a number of matters. On the plain packaging vote, the Conservatives had a free vote, which was absolutely the right thing to have done. The regulations were carried by a very large majority in the House. I voted for them myself and I am pleased that they have been passed.

The hon. Lady asked about the register of lobbyists that is being set up under this Government, as is the declaration of transparency of all ministerial meetings with outside organisations. There have been very important improvements on this issue in the past few years.

The hon. Lady asked about the Budget. I can assure her that the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present next Wednesday will be agreed across the coalition: it will be the Budget of the coalition Government. We will, of course, all be able to set out in our party manifestos what we will do after the general election. When the Chancellor stands up to deliver the Budget on Wednesday, he will be highly unusual in the ranks of Chancellors of the Exchequer in the history of this country in being able to say that during his tenure nearly 2 million jobs have been created, that there is lower inflation than when he began, that he presides over the fastest growth in the G7, and that he has halved the deficit of this country. It is a very long time since a Chancellor of the Exchequer could stand up on Budget day with that as his starting point. That is what he will be able to do next Wednesday.

There will be four days to debate the Budget. That is a great deal of time, so there will be a great opportunity to explore all the issues the hon. Lady has raised. She asked about protecting the national health service budget. I seem to remember that the party that did not offer to protect the national health service budget at the last general election was the Labour party. Indeed, what has happened over the past five years is that its budget has been protected in England but cut in Wales, where it has been under the management of the Labour party— that is the advert. But there will be plenty of time to discuss these issues during the Budget debate.

It has been an interesting week for the Opposition. Shadow Ministers have briefed against their own disastrous tuition fees policies, saying they have other uses for £3 billion. Lord Mandelson has managed to brief against the entire Labour party, saying it will fail to win a majority. According to the New Statesman, the shadow Chancellor has briefed against the Leader of the Opposition, saying he has not grown into the job and he feels dreadfully sorry for him. The shadow Chancellor then managed the most unusual feat of briefing against himself, by setting out a number of scenarios for a future Conservative Government and then saying he disagreed with those scenarios. And the whole Labour party briefed against itself over whether to do a deal with the Scottish National party. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition sits rudderless in the middle, not knowing what to say. We hope at least that the shadow Leader of the House will rule out a deal with the SNP, as many of her own Back Benchers wish her to do—perhaps we can look forward to that at next week’s business questions.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on easier access to funding from local government for community charity organisations such as the Blue Box group in Belper, in my constituency, which is trying to raise funds to rebuild its facilities after they were burnt out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I was sorry to learn of the challenging circumstances facing Blue Box and the shocking events that led up to them. We are committed to making it easier for charities and community groups such as Blue Box to gain access to the funding they need. The Cabinet Office is funding the “funding central” portal, a free service offering a simple, searchable database of funding opportunities for charities and community groups. We have also offered fundraising training for small charities. So I hope, through one or other of these means, Blue Box can find a sustainable way forward.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Government are imposing a 25% cut on further education colleges, despite it having a disastrous impact on colleges. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House for a debate on the impact of this policy? Since 2010, my own college, Riverside college, has faced a 47% cut in its adult budget.

[Mr Hague]

I cannot offer a special debate. As the shadow Leader of the House pointed out, there are only nine days of business left, nearly half of which time will be taken up with the Budget debates, but of course questions about spending and taxation can be highly relevant to those debates, so the hon. Gentleman might find the opportunity to raise the matter then.

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has announced a valedictory debate on Thursday 26 March. Will he do me and others who hope to catch your eye in that debate, Mr Speaker, the honour of responding to it?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it is my intention to give a valedictory response to the valedictory debate at the final valedictory moment of the Parliament. By the end of that, I think we will all be pretty confident we have said goodbye to each other.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

For the avoidance of doubt, I intend to be back here after 7 May—so there will be no valedictory speech from me.

There is an extraordinary mismatch between the amount of money raised by the licence fee and the BBC’s investment in the regions in which it is raised. May we have a debate on making it part of the charter negotiations that regional commissioners of programmes be matched to their areas, so that areas such as Birmingham and the midlands can get a fair share of the money raised?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady raises two interesting points. First, it might be that some Members are giving valedictory speeches who do not know they are—but it is up to the electorate to determine that.

Secondly, on the BBC, I absolutely agree that investment in the regions is vital and that the BBC has a varied record over the past few decades of doing it. The Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee made a statement to the House a few weeks ago about the future funding of the BBC, so the House had a limited opportunity to consider the matter then. Realistically, further consideration will have to await the new Parliament, of which the hon. Lady might or might not be a Member.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

In reply to a written question on 23 February, the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), indicated an intention to publish the Government’s review of asbestos policy for schools very shortly. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, said it would be published in due course. Can the Leader of the House tell us today when this really important review will be published? If he cannot, given the proximity to Dissolution, may I request an urgent debate on the whole issue?

[Mr Hague]

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government are publishing the review today. We have been working hard to prepare it, and we will place copies of it in the Library. We will write to Members, such as my hon. Friend, who have a particular interest in the subject, and we will follow that up with a written statement on Monday, so that the House is made fully aware of the publication. The subject of next Tuesday’s Adjournment debate is the report on asbestos in schools and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take a close interest in that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House the question of a statement by the Government on the future of the Chagos islands in respect of the feasibility of return report that has been done. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that tomorrow I am attending a meeting at the Foreign Office with Mr Olivier Bancoult, the leader of the Chagos Refugee Association. Will he please ensure that between now and Dissolution, the Government make a statement on their policy on the right of return in order to allow the historical wrong of the expulsion of the islanders from those islands finally to be put right, as promised by his Government at the start of this Parliament? We were promised that a decision would be made in this Parliament. There is a week to go.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing champion of this cause and is very assiduous in pursuing it. As he knows and as we have discussed before, there has been an extensive and major report—one I initiated when I was Foreign Secretary—on the feasibility or otherwise of habitation of the Chagos islands or parts of them. That is being considered very seriously by the Government. I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman a statement about it before Dissolution, given that we have nearly arrived there. I can tell him that the Government are giving detailed consideration at the highest level to the report, but I do not know when a decision will be made.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on phone hacking at the Mirror Group? I am surprised that I need to ask for one, as I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, given his considerable previous interest in phone hacking, would have been all over this like a rash. In such a debate, we could find out why the Labour party needed a judge-led inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World, but does not raise a breath about the extensive phone hacking at the Mirror Group.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting comparison. It is important, of course, that all such allegations are fairly and thoroughly investigated, and we expect the relevant authorities to do so. There are many theories with which to answer my hon. Friend’s question. It could be that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to offend the one news organisation that is still arguing in his favour.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

With Budget debates, we normally have a theme for each different day of debate, so we know who will be opening and winding it up. May we have as one theme the growing disparity between the wealthy people of this country and the rest of us, so that we have one day of debate in which the losers over these last five years—there are so many of them—can be compared with those who evade their taxes, evade their responsibilities and seem to get away with it?

[Mr Hague]

Who opens which day of the Budget debate will, of course, be decided. Indeed, the Opposition often have a major influence on the decision. During the Budget debate there will be an opportunity to raise all those issues, and many others. I think that the everyday theme of the Budget debate will be that there are nearly 2 million more jobs in this country than there were five years ago. That is really the dominant theme of the British economy at the moment.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On 5 February at column 426 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend told me that he intended “later” in February to set out the draft changes to Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws. Why was he not able to meet his own target deadline of the end of February? May I seek an assurance from him that he will meet it before his final departure from this place?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) asked about this last week. It is true that February has stretched into March, and I am conscious of the commitment that was made to my hon. Friend, so I do intend to publish the proposed Standing Order changes.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary about the Government’s plans to intervene in and support the most financially challenged NHS areas in England? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) told the Prime Minister yesterday, his area faces a £200 million deficit, and my own area of Devon faces a deficit of £430 million. I was told that an announcement would be made this week, alongside the new integration pilots, but that did not happen. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government are not seeking to bury bad news in the run-up to the general election?

[Mr Hague]

The House has had innumerable opportunities to debate health matters over the last few months, and I am sure that they will be discussed further during the Budget debates. The national health service is benefiting from 9,500 more doctors and 7,500 more nurses than it had in 2010, but if my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has any further announcements to make before the election, he will of course be able to come to the House and make a statement in the usual way.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Southend police are doing a wonderful job in keeping local residents safe. Will my right hon. Friend find time for another debate on police funding? I very much want our excellent neighbourhood policing to be kept at its present levels.

[Mr Hague]

Police reform is clearly working. According to the independent Crime Survey, crime has fallen by more than a fifth under this Government, and I am pleased to say that that includes a fall in Essex.

While we acknowledge that the police funding settlement is challenging, a further debate on it would allow us to point out that chief constables and police and crime commissioners have shown that it is possible to deliver more with less, and to prioritise available resources. However, the best remaining opportunity to pursue the issue on the Floor of the House during the present Parliament will be provided by the four days of debate on the Budget.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I remind the House of my membership of, and support from, Unite, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters is a branch of that union.

Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the proposed national framework agreement relating to language interpretation and translation services? I understand that the Crown Commercial Service is due to issue a tender for such services before Dissolution, but there is serious concern about the effect of the framework on British sign language interpretation and on the profession. Will it be possible for a debate to take place before the tender is issued?

[Mr Hague]

At this stage of the Parliament, it is difficult for me to arrange debates in addition to those that I have already announced, but I know from my own experience as Minister for Disabled People—a long time ago—what outstanding work sign language interpreters do, and how important that work is. The best that I can do to assist the hon. Lady is draw her question to the attention of my ministerial colleagues, and ask them to respond to her directly.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Town centres throughout the country are under pressure from internet purchasers and out-of-town retailers. They can respond either by doing nothing or by getting together to promote themselves and build up the trade, which is what traders and retailers in my constituency have done. They have launched a “first Thursdays” initiative, which began last week: there were street entertainers and musicians, and shops were open until eight o’clock in the evening. May we have a debate about the important role that town centres play in our communities?

[Mr Hague]

I applaud everyone in Rugby for that initiative, and I applaud my hon. Friend for his strong support for it.

The Government are committed to helping high streets to adapt. Our Future High Streets Forum brings together business leaders from the various high street sectors so that they can understand the issues and drive forward new ideas. When people work together locally, they can really be successful in that regard. Although we will not have time for a specific debate before the dissolution of Parliament, the issue is very important, and I am sure that there will be further opportunities for Members to expand on it during the Budget debates.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The official data revealed today on the state of children’s mental health services is clearly shocking. Despite the Budget, we do not have an excess of business between now and the end of the Parliament, so will the Leader of the House organise one final debate so that we can agree a joint plan to tackle this disgrace? In that way we could end this Parliament by doing something genuinely worth while.

[Mr Hague]

That is a very important issue. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about whether the parliamentary agenda is full between now and Dissolution, and I think it is, since there are many Bills that will come back from the House of Lords, there will be a Finance Bill to consider after the Budget and the Backbench Business Committee has utilised all its opportunities for further debate. But of course this will continue to be an important issue during and after the general election. The Government have a strong record on it: funding for mental health is estimated to have increased by £302 million in the last financial year compared to the previous one, and we have legislated to ensure that improving mental health and treating mental illness is given the same priority as treatment for physical health. So this Government have a strong record, but further debate is now most likely to take place in the next Parliament.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns of potential fracking across Ryedale. There is a grey area as the law currently stands, because the regulations to apply the Infrastructure Act 2015 will not now be brought forward until July, yet an application may be lodged by the end of this month. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that this grey area does not remain in place? The grey area relates to whether or not there will be opportunities to frack, or whether there will be protected areas. All the concessions that were given to the national parks, the sites of special scientific interest and the areas of outstanding natural beauty were withdrawn in the Lords.

[Mr Hague]

Well, we have of course now passed the relevant legislation through Parliament, after considerable debate over the last few months. There will be further opportunities to raise these issues with my ministerial colleagues, because in the remaining days of the Parliament there will be questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Communities and Local Government. That will provide the best opportunity for my hon. Friend to seek clarification on these issues.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House may be aware that Boris Johnson in his own inimitable way once said that he fought Clwyd South and that Clwyd South fought back, and he was helped in so doing by the Leader of the House. My constituents in Clwyd South are rather concerned because this time the Conservatives have selected a councillor, David Nicholls, who is a commercial lawyer of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. There is much concern that he may get lost around our 240 square mile constituency. We are confident that the Leader of the House knows the constituency rather better than the said gentleman, so could he find a little time to come across from his retirement home in mid-Wales and show the gentleman around?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady was also asking for a statement, but whether she was asking for one or not, she is going to get one.

[Mr Hague]

I think that was a question not about the business of the House of Commons, but about the general election campaign, but I am sure this candidate will be a splendid candidate for Clwyd South, as Boris Johnson was—I remember that very well. I assure the hon. Lady that I will be stepping out from my new home in mid-Wales to support Conservative candidates the length and breadth of Wales, to help continue the very strong performance in recent years of the Welsh Conservative party.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On 30 March, there will be no more Members of Parliament, but I understand that the Government will continue and that there will still be Ministers. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on what is going to happen after the general election? When will Parliament assemble? What would happen if there were a hung Parliament and therefore some delay in forming a Government? In those circumstances, would existing Ministers continue in post? Taking a random example, let us say that the Deputy Prime Minister lost his seat. Would he continue as Deputy Prime Minister until the new Government had been formed?

[Mr Hague]

The technical answer to my hon. Friend is that when Parliament is dissolved, it is normal at the same time to set out when it will meet again. Indeed, the writs that go out around the country requesting new Members of Parliament will set out when those Members should report to the House of Commons. That happens then, however, and it is not for me to set out such details now. I hope that there will be no doubt whatever about who is the next Prime Minister or about which party has the majority in the House of Commons, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be part of that majority. I do not think it would be helpful to get into other, more chaotic scenarios when discussing the outcome of the election. One has to think about them only for a moment to understand the importance of averting the possibility of their happening at all.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I should like to draw the House’s attention to early-day motion 633.

[That this House believes that asylum seekers should be homed widely in the country to assist community assimilation and to share fairly the strains and burdens on services that newcomers create; is astonished that Cardiff has 976 section 95 migrants, double the total in all of South East England outside of London and that Newport has 391, while the constituency of the Home Secretary has one and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have none; and calls on hon. Members to encourage their areas to accept their responsibilities and welcome at least the average total of migrants homed elsewhere.]

The motion seeks the better assimilation of asylum seekers by spreading them more evenly throughout the country so that all areas can have the benefits and the burdens of having asylum seekers. At the moment, Cardiff has about 900 section 95 asylum seekers and Newport has nearly 400, yet the constituency of one of the United Kingdom Independence party MPs has none and the constituencies of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary have a grand total of two. Would it not be a great advantage if those who were shouting the loudest about immigration could have the experience of having asylum seekers in their constituencies? In that way, they might know what they were talking about.

[Mr Hague]

I think the hon. Gentleman has made his point without a debate. Indeed, he has conducted a short debate on the issue. There will not be time for a debate in the remaining days of this Parliament, although there will be Home Office questions on Monday 23 March, so he will have a further opportunity to advertise his early-day motion and his arguments. I am sure that these issues are well understood by many hon. Members, irrespective of the number of asylum seekers living in their constituencies.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

While I accept the success of the cancer drugs fund, recent changes have resulted in the drug regorafenib, which is effective against gastro-intestinal tumours, no longer being funded. One of my constituents, whose partner suffers from a rare form of cancer, has collected more than 45,000 signatures in support of the drug’s reinstatement. It is a last resort that offers treatment when others have failed, and it gives patients precious extra time until a lasting cure can be found. Given that we are running out of time in this Parliament, can the Leader of the House advise me on how we can get this matter debated?

[Mr Hague]

There is little scope for additional debates, as I have been saying in relation to other issues, but I can tell my hon. Friend that NHS England, which manages the cancer drugs fund, has assured the Department of Health that no patient whose treatment is currently being funded through the cancer drugs fund will have their funding withdrawn as long as it is clinically appropriate that they continue to receive that treatment, and that in addition no drug will be removed from the fund when it is the only therapy available for the condition in question. Furthermore, clinicians can still apply for individual patients to receive a particular drug on an exceptional basis. I would recommend that my hon. Friend pursues the matter directly with Ministers at the Department of Health in order to get further details.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

In recent weeks, a constituent of mine travelled to Kenya, where immigration control accidentally swapped her passport with someone else’s. When she attempted to travel back, she was refused entry to the plane, but the person who had her passport had already returned to the United Kingdom. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to tell us what measures are in place to ensure that this does not happen?

[Mr Hague]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about that. Border Force officers carry out comprehensive checks on all passengers arriving at passport control, and those checks are set out in an operating mandate approved by Home Office Ministers. They are, of course, meant to include a visual examination of the passenger and their passport to ensure that they are the right holder of the document. The best way to pursue this is for my hon. Friend to give me all the details and I will ensure that it is dealt with by my ministerial colleagues as a matter of urgency.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As I have previously mentioned in the House, my constituent Laura Thomas was tragically killed in an accident with a truck whose driver was using a mobile phone at the time. The current sanctions for such dangerous driving are too lenient, as are the penalties for using a hand-held mobile phone. May we have a debate on the need to discourage, through stiffer penalties, the epidemic of using hand-held phones while driving?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is assiduous in raising this important issue, highlighting the devastating impact that driving while on a mobile phone can have. The Government remain concerned about this. The Department for Transport has commissioned research on the prevalence of such phone use and the report of the survey was published on gov.uk on 25 February. That will help to shape future policy decisions. As for the penalties that are applied, there will be Ministry of Justice questions next week on the Floor of the House, so there are one or two remaining opportunities to pursue this.

Business of the House

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 9 March—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2015, followed by general debate on the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Deregulation Bill, followed by motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to subsidiarity and proportionality and the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments, followed by debate on a motion relating to school funding. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 11 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 12 March—Debate on a motion relating to defence spending, followed by debate on a motion relating to education regulations and faith schools. The subjects for both debates were recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 March will include:

Monday 16 March—Motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by motion to approve the draft Drug Driving (Specified Limits) England and Wales (Amendment) Regulations 2015, followed by the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Tuesday 17 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter-terrorism, followed by debate on motions relating to the reports from the Committee on Standards on the code of conduct and on the standards system in the House of Commons, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 18 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 19 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 20 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of March will be:

Thursday 12 March—General debate on the relationship between police and children, followed by general debate on violence against women and girls.

Monday 16 March—General debate on a petition relating to veterans’ pensions.

Thursday 19 March—General debate on the future of local newspapers.

Monday 23 March—General debate on an e-petition relating to proposed increase in fees for nurses and midwives.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. On Sunday, we will celebrate international women’s day. We have our pink bus, which is generating fantastic enthusiasm wherever it goes in the country, and half our candidates in target seats are women. Will the Leader of the House tell us what the Conservative party is doing to involve women properly in politics?

On Monday, we will consider Lords amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill, including proposals for a crackdown on ticket touting. Despite widespread evidence of touts fleecing the public and calls for action from across the leisure industry, the Government have spent more than a year opposing the measures and the Culture Secretary described ticket touts admiringly as “classic entrepreneurs”. Will the Leader of the House confirm that following their humiliating climbdown in the Lords the Government will support these proposals in the Commons and finally protect the public from this exploitation?

There are strong and powerful arguments in favour of plain packaging for cigarettes, but this Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting them. First, they were for a vote on plain packaging, then when they took tobacco lobbyist Lynton Crosby in to the heart of Downing street they were suddenly against it. Now after five years of inaction, in the dying days of this Parliament, they are for it again. I note that the plain packaging regulations will finally be taken in Committee on 9 March, but why did the Leader not schedule a debate on the Floor of the House? Is it because he knows that his party is split right down the middle on this important public health measure but he does not want the public to notice?

Yesterday the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to acknowledge his complete failure to keep his “no ifs, no buts” promise on net migration, which is not in the tens of thousands that he promised but nearly 300,000 this year alone. In a desperate attempt at a diversionary tactic, he treated us to a selective list of things that he thinks he got right, while continuing to refuse to make himself available for scrutiny on any of them in a head-to-head TV debate with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

I greatly enjoyed the Leader of the House’s speech at the Press Gallery lunch last week, decoding what he called civil service-ese and revealing that when civil servants say, “We are scaling up our response,” they actually mean, “We never expected this to happen.” So I have been doing my own decoding of the Prime Minister’s pre-election promises. When he said:

“We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT”,

what he really meant was, “ I will raise VAT when the election is safely over.” When he said, “We will not balance the books on the backs of the poor”, what he really meant was, “We will not balance the books at all.” When he said in 2009:

“I have always believed in live television debates. I think they can help enliven our democracy.”,

what he really meant was, “I will only debate with people when I’m not scared I might lose.”

In his pre-2010 election contract with the British people, the Prime Minister wrote:

“If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”

Mr Speaker, there are only nine weeks to go.

The Liberal Democrats are no better. This week we have learned what their red line in any future coalition talks would be. Having campaigned to scrap all tuition fees during the last election, only to vote to triple them after the election, they now plan to veto Labour’s plan to cut fees by a third and increase grants for poor students. I wonder whether we could have that in writing, because then we will know for sure that they will do the exact opposite.

It is not surprising that the Lib Dem right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has decided that he needs to take matters into his own hands. On Tuesday he held an Adjournment debate on the plight of endangered species, and he has written about it on Politics Home. He laments:

“The facts are stark. … numbers have fallen … the poachers are highly organised. … we are in a race against time.”

Before long, the Liberal Democrats will be going the way of the woolly mammoth.

I have learned this week that the Conservative party is busy preparing for a Labour victory in May. The Chancellor has apparently hatched a long-term cunning plan to curb the regicidal instincts of the Conservative party—good luck with that—and keep the Prime Minister on as leader after 7 May even if it loses. According to one Back Bencher, “He either wins or he goes.” Once again showing his strategic prowess, the man he has chosen to assist him in this mission to avoid a leadership battle is the ever-absent Tory Chief Whip. Apparently they are going to form a protective ring around their leader and claim that he won a moral victory even if the Conservatives lose. Is this why the Chief Whip is never here, Mr Speaker? He is too busy forming a protective ring around the Prime Minister to bother to come to this Chamber. Having just listed some of their broken promises, I feel I should offer some comfort to the Conservatives. If there is one target that I am confident the Tories will not miss, it is the one on the Prime Minister’s back.

[Mr Hague]

The shadow Leader may not be in a strong position this week to talk about party leaders since this is the week in which the Doncaster Free Press released its power list and revealed that the Leader of the Opposition was the fourth most influential person in Doncaster, ranking, interestingly, behind the star of One Direction who just happened to grow up in Doncaster. The right hon. Gentleman is regarded as having less influence on the town than that. We will return to these matters in a moment.

On the hon. Lady’s specific questions, she asked, rightly, about international women’s day, which we look forward to commemorating on Sunday. She referred to the pink bus that has caused so much amusement around the country and asked what the Government have been doing. We have been achieving more women in work than ever before in history—up by 839,000 since May 2010. There are more women-led businesses than ever before in the history of the country and 37% of start-up loans are now going to women. There are more women on FTSE boards than ever before in the history of the country, with no all-male boards remaining. More than half the people lifted out of income tax altogether—58% of them—are women, and the state pension reforms have particularly benefited women, who have historically done poorly under the complicated two-tier system of pensions. That is a tremendous record of achievement, which is superior to any previous Government’s record in assisting the welfare of the women of this country.

The hon. Lady mentioned students—rather bravely, in a week in which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that Labour’s proposed reform of tuition fees

“sounds progressive. . . Sadly, it isn’t.”

It

“will mainly benefit mid- to high-earning graduates who would otherwise have been repaying all or most of their loans.”

That is the position bizarrely adopted by the Labour party on which it is now condemned to fight the election.

It was brave of the hon. Lady, too, to mention migration, as it was a completely open door under the previous Government which brought millions of people to settle in this country.

Following my extensive translation of civil service-ese at the Press Gallery lunch, the hon. Lady did a translation of Prime Ministerial statements, but I have my own translation of what the Leader of the Opposition was saying yesterday when he was calling for a debate, which means, “I am desperate because the election is slipping away from me and I have nothing else to ask about at all.” That is the translation of that. When I was Leader of the Opposition in 2001, I recall asking Tony Blair for a television debate. There was not even an offer of a debate from Tony Blair, not even the pretence of a debate. There was a very clear “No debate whatsoever.” This Prime Minister is offering a debate and that is an offer that should be taken up, which was never offered by Tony Blair in similar circumstances.

Talking of debates, the hon. Lady asked about the debate on the plain packaging of cigarettes. As she knows, because of EU procedures it has been possible to lay regulations but not to make them until after 3 March. That is the reason for the timing. It is normal for such statutory instruments to be considered in a Committee after going through the scrutiny procedures and, subject to the deliberations of that Committee, it will then be possible for the whole House to vote on the outcome of that Committee’s deliberations.

I should have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the Government’s move in the other place on ticketing. She did not ask about the economic situation in the country, but what has defined the past couple of weeks is what has happened on the economy. Today we heard that new car sales for February were up 12% on last year. This week we heard that average household incomes have returned to pre-recession levels. In the past two weeks we have seen growth in manufacturing and construction up, public sector borrowing fall, and small firms win more than a quarter of Government contracts—the highest percentage ever. That is very clear evidence as we move to the end of the Parliament that a long-term economic plan is right for this country and is working.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is known for writing bestsellers, in one of which he wrote about the history of Parliament sitting in York. One of the issues that will exercise both Houses in the next Parliament is where to sit while major works are taking place here. I hope that he will look no further than his and our main city of York for that purpose.

[Mr Hague]

The suggestion is dear to the hearts of all us Yorkshiremen, although I have to tell my hon. Friend that it might not go down very well in Lancashire. If it becomes necessary for the House to move, I suspect that somewhere closer to its current location might be found. The important decisions on restoration and renewal need to be made in the next Parliament—it would not be appropriate to make them now—so I cannot give her a definitive answer.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen my early-day motion 840 on Sejal Koyani and the London School of Business and Finance?

[That this House condemns in the strongest terms Sejal Koyani of the London School of Business and Finance, who has stolen thousands of pounds from a constituent of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, and has failed over a period of months to reply to letters from the right hon. Member; calls on the Home Secretary to remove any recognition from this criminal, on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to look into these larcenous activities, and on the Metropolitan Police to investigate; and advises any potential clients to have nothing to do with these thieves.]

Behind it lurks the theft of £3,600 from my constituent, which that thief and that college promised to give back 45 days after last October. They have not got back to him or to me, despite repeated letters. They still have that stolen £3,600, which belongs to my constituent. May we have action on that in the way I request in the early-day motion as a lesson to teach those people that they cannot steal?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks up strongly for his constituent and has obviously been pursing the case assiduously, as usual. I will certainly refer his early-day motion, and the fact that he has raised the matter on the Floor of the House, to my ministerial colleagues so that they, too, can investigate.

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

If the prospects of a debate in this Parliament on the options for English devolution are receding, can my right hon. Friend at least publish the draft Standing Orders for his preferred option?

[Mr Hague]

I think that there is a good chance that I will be able to do that. I have been working on the draft Standing Orders. Whether or not there is a debate, it is very important that people are able to see the detail of what is proposed, so I will give further consideration to my right hon. Friend’s request.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Opposition Members are proud of our policy commitment not only to reduce student fees from £9,000 to £6,000, but to increase maintenance grants. However, it is unclear what the Government would do to better support students and universities. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that my constituents can get a better understanding of what the Government would do? Will he also make a commitment that his party will not seek to lift the fee cap?

[Mr Hague]

We have delivered record numbers of students and university applications, against many predictions, following the change in the policy on tuition fees introduced early in this Parliament, so that change is standing the test of time. Of course, these matters are legitimate subjects for debate in the general election campaign. Given that there are only three weeks remaining before Dissolution, it is becoming unlikely that we will be able to have an additional debate on the subject.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House was rather unfair to the Leader of the Opposition; he did indeed come fourth in the Doncaster power list, but it was churlish of my right hon. Friend not to mention that he has gone up two places since last year, when he was sixth.

Last August The Times reported that the Prime Minister had promised to double magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months by the end of this Parliament, which was a very welcome announcement. Given that we are rapidly running out of time, can the Leader of the House tell us when that will be brought into effect in the last few weeks of this Parliament?

[Mr Hague]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, that is a faster rate of advance than normal by the Leader of the Opposition and it means that he may be in with a chance of running Doncaster by 2018. I welcome my hon. Friend’s analysis.

I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific answer about when the Government’s commitment will take effect, but I will draw his question to the attention of my ministerial colleagues and ensure that he gets a direct reply.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is well aware that a number of colleagues have raised the issue of the Chagos islands many times during business questions. When he was Foreign Secretary, he commissioned the KPMG report on the feasibility of right of return. We are waiting for a statement to be made to the House so that Ministers can be questioned and the issue debated. It was promised that the issue would be resolved before the end of this Parliament, but we have only a short time to go.

[Mr Hague]

This is an important report on an important issue and the hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed it. Indeed, as Foreign Secretary I set up the new feasibility study. A very extensive and detailed report has now been produced, and my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office are considering it in detail. It will also need to be considered across the whole of Government. I am sure it is better to look at it in great detail than to rush to decisions about it, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timetable for any announcement, but I will tell my colleagues that he is asking about it and that there is interest in it in Parliament. We will consider it within Government as rapidly as possible.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Despite the fact that I have made it plain that I am standing down at the next election, inexplicably I am getting a lot of e-mails asking me to commit to opposing things in the next Parliament, particularly the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which, strangely enough, I have not seen the details of because nobody else has—it has not been negotiated yet. For the avoidance of doubt, yet again, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Government statement—he may care to make it right now—making it clear that TTIP has nothing whatsoever to do with any risk to the future of the NHS?

[Mr Hague]

It is absolutely clear that it is for local NHS commissioners to take decisions on which providers should deliver health care services in the best interests of their patients. TTIP will not change that in any respect. I can give my hon. Friend not only a Government statement, but the statement of the EU Trade Commissioner, who said on 13 September:

“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”

That should be reassuring to people around the country who might think there is some merit in the arguments put by trade unions and the Labour party, which are designed to scare people not to arrive at a good trade deal for this country.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

May I draw the attention of the Government and the House to a new film drama, “A Dark Reflection”, which is about air that is contaminated by organo- phosphates entering the aircraft cabin as a result of oil breakdowns in engines, which is where the cabin air is drawn from or, from auxiliary power units or even de-icing fluids. Is it not time to have a debate about fitting air detection systems to aircraft to protect passengers and crew from aerotoxic poisoning?

[Mr Hague]

That is, of course, a wholly legitimate question to ask. We have just had questions to Transport Ministers and the hon. Gentleman’s question sounded a little bit like it had been left over from that. I have no doubt that Transport Ministers will notice that he has raised the issue. I cannot offer him a debate in the remaining small number of days before the end of the Parliament, but he has now managed to raise the issue on the Floor of the House.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I have the honour of being the chairman of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue. Given that the Chief Fire Officers Association is very concerned that very few newly built schools have automatic sprinkler systems fitted, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the issue?

[Mr Hague]

I am advised that the Government’s policy is that such sprinkler systems should be installed in new school buildings where there is a real and significant risk, as identified in a fire risk assessment. There will also be other situations where sprinklers are fitted because they form an integral part of the school building design and are good value for money. It is unlikely that we will be able to have a debate on the issue at this stage of the Parliament, but the House will have noted my hon. Friend’s strong interest in it and I have every confidence he will be able to return to it in the new Parliament.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on what constitutes “offshore”? The Health and Social Care Information Centre, the national provider of IT for health services, has apparently objected to CGI—a Canadian-owned but Bridgend-based IT company—bidding for a health IT contract on the very bizarre basis that Wales is offshore. May we have clarification? The Severn is wide, but not that wide.

[Mr Hague]

Having recently purchased a property in Wales, I can confirm that it is not offshore. That can be regarded not only as a personal statement, but as an official statement from the Government. The notion of Wales being offshore seems a strange one in relation to the matter the hon. Lady raises. It would be best to pursue it directly with Health Ministers, and I will tell them she has raised it in the House.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The director of ExxonMobil Chemical, in my constituency, has written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about a threat to the industry caused by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to seek a further assessment of a plasticiser, a key product that has just been given a relatively clean bill of health by the appropriate European body. The director has yet to receive a reply, but the House needs an urgent statement from the Secretary of State about this threat to such an important industry in Hampshire.

[Mr Hague]

The industry is very important for Hampshire and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom. I am sure it provides employment for many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, so he is quite right to raise the issue. I cannot give him an immediate answer, but I will refer his interest to my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Although we do not have much of this Parliament left, there will be questions to the Business Secretary on 26 March. I will ensure my hon. Friend’s urgent interest is registered with BIS, and he may be able to return to it then.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The First Secretary of State has always seemed to me a pretty robust and courageous politician, so will he join me in calling for an early debate about what many people in my constituency and this country believe to be their right—to see the leaders of the great parties having a robust and courageous discussion on television so that the British people can make an informed decision? What is going on when this House remains nearly mute, after what has become almost a constitutional convention is taken away by one person—the not so courageous Prime Minister?

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that constitutional conventions are set by broadcasters in this country. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have debated so many issues over the years, was in the House throughout the time that Tony Blair was Prime Minister. When he refused to have any debates on television, I do not recall the hon. Gentleman rising to say that Tony Blair ought to reconsider his position, that such a debate was vital to the British constitution or that it was an important right of the hon. Gentleman, constituents during an election campaign. I assure him that his constituents will see a great deal of all the party leaders during the general election campaign—which can only improve the prospects of the Conservative party.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Just as time is running out on this Parliament, time is more poignantly running out on the young boys who suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, such as my constituent Archie Hill, whose parents Gary and Louisa have campaigned tirelessly for a new drug called Translarna to made available for him and other sufferers. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether we have any time left during which we can bring more pressure to bear on NHS England? We have met the Prime Minister, who has written supportively, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is the Minister for life sciences; only NHS England stands in the way. How can my right hon. Friend help?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend may well know that there is a clear process and timetable for this, and for rare conditions the decision to fund treatments and drugs is made by NHS England. A draft clinical commissioning policy on the use of Translarna for the treatment of DMD has been developed, and it is now being considered for funding. The consultation runs until 27 April, so it has another six or seven weeks to run. I urge my right hon. Friend and other colleagues who have raised this issue in the House to make their views known to NHS England throughout that process.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Joanna Michael, the daughter of my constituent Angela Michael, was brutally murdered in 2009. The Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled that she was failed by the police, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that a negligence claim cannot be brought against the police because they have immunity. May we have a debate with a view to changing the law so that the police are held to account in the same way as doctors, teachers and the armed forces?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about a disturbing case. I will refer it to my ministerial colleagues, and there will be further questions to Ministers at the Ministry of Justice before the Dissolution of Parliament. I will ensure that Ministers consider the matter he has raised.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is estimated that the elephant population of the Selous reserve in Tanzania has fallen from 55,000 in 2006 to about 15,000 now. As chair of the all-party group on Tanzania and a long-term resident of that country, that greatly distresses me and hundreds of people around the world. May we have an urgent debate in this House on the factors that fuel demand for ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right, and this is a deeply disturbing situation not only in Tanzania but internationally. The British Government are playing a leading role in fighting this. As Foreign Secretary, in February last year I hosted an international summit on the issue, which the President of Tanzania addressed. I now chair a taskforce on how to prevent the transportation of illegal ivory, at the request of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. As my hon. Friend says, it is ultimately a matter of demand in countries such as China, Vietnam and Thailand, and it is welcome that such issues are being debated with China during the visit of His Royal Highness this week.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we debate debating? I recall that when I succeeded the right hon. Gentleman many years ago as president of the world’s most famous student debating society, he was in favour of debating—indeed, he was in favour of it as late as 2001 when he was Leader of the Opposition, as he told the House today. If we had such a debate, would we at least get one more opportunity to see the Leader of the House in full flow, showing the skill he developed all those years ago of being able to defend the indefensible—namely, the Prime Minister’s craven approach to debating head to head on television with the Leader of the Opposition?

[Mr Hague]

The Prime Minister has debated every Wednesday for years with the Leader of the Opposition, and he has almost invariably come off best in those debates. The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is not right. He and I have always been committed to debating through our background in the Oxford union, and the Prime Minister has offered the terms of a debate to broadcasters and the other parties. As I pointed out earlier, such an offer was never made to me by the Prime Minister of the day when I was Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Domestic drones were the must-have gift last Christmas—needless to say I did not get one, although I did get a Dyson cleaner. The usage of drones is governed by the Civil Aviation Authority, and there was a near miss between a drone and an A320 last summer. May we have a debate to ensure that rules on the use of drones are fully known, so that we can guarantee the serenity and safety of residents in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Hague]

I hope my hon. Friend finds his Dyson cleaner easier to control than some people find their drones. I am sure he will. This will be an important subject for consideration, but I cannot offer a debate before the Dissolution of Parliament. Important privacy and air safety issues are at stake, which I know have been considered by the Civil Aviation Authority. This activity will continue to develop, so I would be very surprised if Parliament did not consider it in the coming months—most likely, of course, in the new Parliament.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Some villages in Coedpoeth and Brymbo in my constituency face very large bills through no fault of their own because they have to fund remedial work resulting from historic lead contamination. This is an anomalous situation, as our law generally follows the principle that the polluter pays, but here there is no traceable polluter. Last year in Blanefield in Scotland, the UK Government reached a deal with the Scottish Government and the local authority jointly to fund work in a parallel situation. The Welsh Government would like a similar solution in this case. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate, to be answered by a Treasury Minister, so that the UK Government can lay out a consistent position on funding criteria?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue for her constituents. I do not know what the prospects are of the consistent position she has called for emerging, but Treasury questions take place next Tuesday, 10 March, providing an early opportunity for her to raise the matter with Treasury Ministers. She will be able to pursue it with them by every other avenue. I think it unlikely that we will be able to have such a debate before Dissolution, but the hon. Lady has those opportunities to raise the issue.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be greatly missed by the House. He has done outstanding work and left a lasting legacy on the issue of sexual violence in conflict. It is important to address issues relating to women and equalities. I ask him, perhaps as a parting gift, to urge all hon. Members to support the establishment of a Select Committee on women and equalities, so that we can carry on scrutinising these issues, holding the Government to account on them and ensuring that we make progress for women in this country and elsewhere throughout the world.

[Mr Hague]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I pay tribute to her and the work she has done on preventing sexual violence. I have seen her working in her constituency and across London on this issue, and I know her work is appreciated by other London Members. As I mentioned earlier, I have a lot of sympathy with the case for establishing an equalities Select Committee of some kind. The establishment of Select Committees will have to be decided in the new Parliament. I add that the number of other Select Committees would have to be reduced by one in order to accommodate this one.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The major supermarkets, Eurotunnel, major hauliers and others support the building of a dedicated rail freight line capable of carrying full-size lorry trailers on trains and linking all the major economic regions of Britain with each other and the channel tunnel. There is such a scheme, called the GB freight route, which could be built easily, quickly and economically and would take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads every year. This is significant for a number of Government Departments, including the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Transport. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to encourage Ministers from all those Departments to consult the relevant companies about advancing this scheme?

[Mr Hague]

I will certainly inform my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments of the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised. As I said earlier, we have just had Transport Question Time, and I think I shall have to make a list for Transport Ministers of the questions left over from it and asked during business questions. I am happy to provide that service on this occasion, and the hon. Gentleman has managed to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

This is not a transport issue, but may we have a debate in the short time left on recent changes to the rules governing community amateur sports clubs, with specific reference to rate relief thresholds? The York Railway Institute, which provides fantastic sporting facilities to many of my constituents, is under financial threat as a result of the changes. It could close or be broken up to offset them, after serving the public of York since its foundation in 1889.

[Mr Hague]

The Government have given local authorities the power to offer business rate discounts beyond predefined reliefs at their discretion, including to sports clubs, to be funded 50% by central Government and 50% by local authorities. I recommend that the club discuss this with its local authority. The Treasury would expect local authorities to take full account of the funding provided by central Government for discretionary rate relief when making their decisions.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Birmingham and other midlands licence fee payers contribute £942 million to the BBC coffers, but less than £80 million of that was invested in our region last year. That is less than it manages to spend in London over 12 days. May we have a debate before the end of this Parliament on the renewal terms for the BBC charter, so we can agree some rules for fair funding and an end to our subsidising the London luvvies broadcasting corporation?

[Mr Hague]

Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with the need for the BBC to invest around the country. We had a statement just last week by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so there have been recent opportunities to raise the implications of that on the Floor of the House. I am sure there will be other debates on the future of the BBC, but I cannot offer one in the remaining 14 days the House is sitting before we come to the general election campaign.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I bring good news from Kettering, where the £4 million upgrade of the maternity department at Kettering general hospital has just begun, due for completion in December. Ten babies a day, on average, are delivered at the hospital. This is part of an £18 million investment package for the hospital, which comes ahead of a potential £30 million for developing a new urgent care hub facility on the site. Will my right hon. Friend encourage our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to include in his Budget statement a paragraph making it clear that such massive investment in our local NHS hospitals is possible only because of the success of our long-term economic plan?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has again brought important good news from Kettering, as he has done in recent weeks concerning the economy, employment and the success of the town, and all that is related to the success of this country. He mentions investment in the national health service, which is now conducting 1.3 million more operations, 6 million more out-patient appointments and 3.5 million more diagnostic tests than it did five years ago. His central point is important and absolutely correct: such investment is only possible with a growing economy. That is what is at stake in the coming general election.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we debate early-day motion 839?

[That this House is appalled at the demeaning spectacle of Prime Minister's Questions, where the Leader of the Opposition’s questions are not answered by the Prime Minister, who uses the occasions as a bully pulpit for his own chosen issues; notes the widely expressed public revulsion at this ill-mannered, pointless spectacle; and calls for its replacement by meetings where the Prime Minister will answer questions from 20 randomly-selected backbenchers in a committee room in an atmosphere of calm and dignity.]

This House was brought into further disrepute by the disgraceful behaviour of two senior Members recently, who shamed themselves and this House on the “Dispatches” programme. However, weekly the House is brought into disrepute by the spectacle of Prime Minister’s Question Time, which consists of little more than repeated tedious mantras, crude insults and answers that do not reflect the questions asked. Prime Minister John Major and Neil Kinnock made a valiant effort to reform question time, as has the present Speaker, but I believe the present format is unreformable and we have to look to a new way of presenting Prime Minister’s Question Time—in a manner that is robust, but calm and dignified.

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the two right hon. Members in question have referred themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That has been the correct thing to do, and the matter will now be investigated.

On Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure that in future Parliaments—in the next Parliament—the Procedure Committee and the House as a whole can consider any suggested changes. We can always change and improve our procedures, and it is always important to have an eye on doing so. I would only add that in my experience all over the world as Foreign Secretary for most of the past five years, our Parliament and its proceedings are widely admired. Many people in countries all over the world have expressed to me the wish that they could question their Head of Government in the same way we can here in this House, and so we must not lose that central aspect of our proceedings.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Reports this week of a woman acting as a surrogate to give birth to her own son’s baby have shocked many people, not least because the procedure was reportedly carried out in a clinic licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Will my right hon. Friend, as one of his final acts, find time for an urgent debate on the actions of the HFEA and the fertility clinic involved in this case? If an urgent debate is not possible, what will he do?

[Mr Hague]

Given the time constraints that I have mentioned several times, an urgent debate is not possible. I do not know the details of the case my hon. Friend has raised. Nevertheless, I can understand the debate and concern about such issues, so I will inform my colleagues at the Department of Health of his interest in this matter and the fact that he has raised it, and ask them to respond to him.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the offer of a cup of tea earlier. That is the closest thing I have had to an offer of a hot date in a very long time.

May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the future of the Planning Inspectorate, which seems to be wantonly ignoring the views of local people and going against adopted local plans, especially, for example, in the village of West Haddon in my constituency?

[Mr Hague]

There are debates on planning. In fact, there is a debate today in Westminster Hall on the national planning policy framework, so my hon. Friend may be able to raise such matters during it. I cannot otherwise offer a debate in the time available. Communities and Local Government questions will take place on 16 March—a week on Monday. There are therefore a few remaining opportunities for him to raise the issue in the House.

Business of the House

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 2 March—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Devolution in England: The Case for Local Government”, followed by a debate on “Towards the next Defence and Security Review: Part Two—NATO”. Further details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Devolution in England: The Case for Local Government, 1st Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, HC 503, and the Government response; Towards the next Defence and Security Review Part Two: NATO, 3rd Report from the Defence Committee, HC 358, and the Government response, HC 755.]

Tuesday 3 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, followed by a debate on children’s and adolescents’ mental health and child and adolescent mental health services. Further details will be given in the Official Report. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

[The details are as follows: Support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, 4th Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 720 of Session 2013-14; Children’s and adolescents’ mental health and CAMHS, 3rd Report from the Health Committee, HC 342, and the Government response.]

Wednesday 4 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by Opposition day (unallotted half-day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 March—There will be a general debate on international women’s day, followed by a general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 March—Private Members’ Bills.

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

Monday 9 March—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to “Commission Work Programme 2015”, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Deregulation Bill, followed by a motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to subsidiarity and proportionality and the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments.

Wednesday 11 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party—subject to be announced—followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

Thursday 12 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on 5 March will be a general debate on planning and the national planning policy framework.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House.

Monday and Tuesday are estimates days, and we shall have a chance to scrutinise Government waste, but the form of the debates will allow us only to scratch the surface of those overspends. Does the Leader of the House agree that rather than three days being allocated for debate, the estimates process needs to be made much more rigorous? Will he support our plans for a yearly session of budget questions to each Department, so that Secretaries of State can be held to account directly for their spending decisions?

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) described what seemed to be a worrying case of the blatant misuse of public resources for party-political purposes. After she had passed an e-mail from a concerned constituent to the Prime Minister, her constituent received a party-political reply from No. 10 featuring propaganda about the Conservative Party manifesto. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether party-political letters are being prepared at public expense and civil service neutrality is being undermined, or whether correspondence intended for the Prime Minister is being passed directly to the Conservative party? Will he tell us why this seems to be a developing theme with this Government, with millions of letters to small businesses on No. 10 headed paper filled with Tory propaganda, Government announcements conveniently located in marginal seats, the Prime Minister and Chancellor travelling the country on public money on their “long-term economic scam tour” and the unexplained 22% rise in the Government’s external communications bill just as the election is approaching? Will the Leader of the House also arrange for an urgent statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on these disturbing developments?

Today, we have had the last set of quarterly migration figures before the election and it is clear that the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands is now in tatters. Instead of net migration’s being reduced, it is now higher than it was at the start of this Parliament and illegal immigration and exploitation are getting worse. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Home Secretary on the huge failure in her Department?

Figures released this week show that the number of people on zero-hours contracts has soared, but in this place we have had the sorry sight of the Conservative party defending the right of its MPs to earn millions of pounds on the side. Our motion yesterday was a sensible solution to the widening gap between the rules we have in this place and the standards the public expect of us. In a democracy, when we are out of step with public opinion we must change. The Government voted against banning paid directorships and consultancies, so I want to ask the Leader of the House whether his party is ready to contemplate any form of change.

I have been reading an interview this morning with the Prime Minister in woman&home magazine. In it, he praised his wife and said that behind every great man there is a great woman. Surely he meant that behind every great man there is a very surprised woman.

I am getting a bit worried, Mr Speaker. During questions yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted of how successfully he combines his job as Prime Minister with being the Member of Parliament for West Oxfordshire. That must be easy, because the constituency of West Oxfordshire does not even exist. Last week, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) knocked on the door of a local resident claiming that he was their MP, but was greeted by the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who pointed out that he was in fact canvassing in the wrong constituency. I do not know about second jobs, but perhaps they should pay a bit more attention to their first ones. It is of course possible that they both just had a mind blank, like the leader of the Green party, who was involved in an eco-friendly car crash at the LBC studios on Tuesday. I gather that following her interview the Green party has joined the Conservative party in campaigning to be excluded from the leaders’ debates.

Although some Government members do not seem to know quite where their constituencies are, the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) appears to have left his for another planet entirely. He has been formulating the new Conservative health policy and not content with wasting £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, he told a journal this week that the way to take the huge pressure off doctors is astrology. He claimed that it is a useful diagnostic tool, enabling us to see strengths and weaknesses via the birth chart. It is unclear whether he thinks that the Chancellor would have met his deficit reduction targets if only he had not broken that mirror.

One person losing his constituency by choice is the Leader of the House. Asked at the weekend why he was leaving Parliament, he replied, “I’ve been Foreign Secretary and I’m determined not to be Prime Minister.” If I may say so, that goes some way to explaining his time as Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Hague]

As ever, I am grateful for the questions from the hon. Lady. It shows what a broad party we are that we welcome views from all parts of the galaxy, as she has just demonstrated. On the question of what is behind every great man, I have always thought that behind every great man is an astonished mother-in-law, so that is a further refinement of that phrase. I can assure her that the Prime Minister knows where his constituency is and it is of course in west Oxfordshire even though that might not be its name. It would be wise, of course, for all candidates from all parties to know the boundaries of their constituencies for the general election.

On the so-called car crash interview of the leader of the Green party, I think she has been taking lessons from the shadow Chancellor, who has given a series of disastrous interviews in which he has managed to fall out with his own window cleaner, quite apart from anything else. I have previously put the hon. Lady forward for her party leadership, but I really think she ought to consider being the shadow Chancellor in the coming general election campaign, because a shadow Cabinet member has said that if the shadow Chancellor

“carries on behaving like this he is not unassailable…He has complete contempt for colleagues. He’s not a team player.”

The hon. Lady is a team player and she could replace him. I think she would do a much better job than he has done. Indeed, Labour might not then need to bring back Lord Prescott to the front line of the campaign, which in any election campaign is a sure sign of desperation.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

1997, 2001 and 2005.

[Mr Hague]

I have enormous respect for Lord Prescott, but having to go back 10 years is a sign of desperation for Labour.

On a more serious question, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked about Government waste. I remind her that this Government have saved, thanks to the Cabinet Office Ministers, more than £10 billion a year just by making elementary things in government more efficient. They have done that year on year by making sure that contracts are not excessive and that Government Departments buy services together. This Government have rooted out waste in government.

The hon. Lady asked about the estimates days, the subjects for which are, of course, chosen by the Liaison Committee, so there is a well-established procedure. The hon. Lady has reforms in mind, but as things stand it is the role of Select Committees and questions in this House to hold Ministers to account. Although I am not closing off any sort of reform, that will be a question for the new Parliament, in which, as the hon. Lady has noted, I will conveniently not be present.

The Prime Minister dealt with the question of correspondence yesterday. The rules are exactly the same as they were under the previous Government and they are observed.

I am pleased that the long-term economic plan has entered the hon. Lady’s vocabulary, as well as that of the rest of the House and the country. I know she tried to alter one of those words, but it shows that that phrase has entered the economic vocabulary not just of the nation, but of the world. The head of the OECD stated this week:

“My main message to you today is well done. Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long-term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”

The Chancellor is backed by economic commentators across the world, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who has fallen out with his own window cleaner. That is the actual choice before the country in the coming election.

The hon. Lady asked about yesterday’s debate. One of the points I made during it is that there have been many improvements to transparency and accountability in this Parliament and there will be scope for further improvements, but neither I nor the House agree with the hon. Lady’s proposals. She said that millions were being earned. I recall that one of the few Members recording more than £1 million in outside earnings in this Parliament was the brother of the Leader of the Opposition before he left the House. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not put forward his proposals for reform until his brother had left the House of Commons. Perhaps he is in favour of family businesses, after all—you never know—or perhaps we have found the limits of fratricide: it’s all right to stab your brother in the back politically, but not to cut off his earnings as well. How extremely thoughtful of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Earlier this week, during proceedings on the Serious Crime Bill, I highlighted the need for effective mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse in regulated settings, to afford better protection to our children and vulnerable people. Today, we shall hear in more detail about the repulsive activities of Jimmy Savile at our local hospital in Buckinghamshire, which will further reinforce the urgent need for reform. Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to giving more time for a full debate on mandatory reporting, so that we might perhaps achieve cross-party consensus that could lead to action before the general election, rather than waiting until later in the year?

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement on this matter shortly, and there will be opportunities for her and other Members to ask him questions. This is an important issue, and she, as a local Member of Parliament, will take a close interest in it. I think it would be best for the House to wait to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say before we consider what further debates on mandatory reporting might be necessary.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Later this year, the world will turn its attention to the conference of the parties in Paris in December and, before that, to the conference on sustainable development goals in September. In July, the conference on the financing of development, which is perhaps more important, will take place in Addis. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that we have a major debate on that conference in this Chamber in Government time, and that the Treasury should be represented at such a debate to explain to the House precisely what it will be doing to ensure the success of the sustainable development goals and of the United Nations framework convention on climate change in December?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of that whole sequence of conferences later this year. I remember agreeing, as Foreign Secretary, to give assistance and advice to France on the hosting of the Paris meeting, because we in this country have so much expertise on these issues. This is a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for International Development, so it would primarily be for them to take part in any such debates. The Treasury’s role is to help to supply the money, as is so often the case. I certainly hope that there will be debates on the matter, but I anticipate that they will now have to take place in the next Parliament. The Backbench Business Committee has a few remaining days in this Parliament, as I have announced, but it would be a matter for the Committee to decide whether we had a general debate on these or other issues.

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My question will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend, as I have asked it several times before. In the diminishing number of days between now and Dissolution, is it still his ambition to hold a debate and a vote on the options in his White Paper “The Implications of Devolution for England”?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend’s question comes as no surprise—he has indeed asked it several times. The answer is that my ambition remains the same, but I have not achieved it yet. I am conscious of that, but such a debate and vote would of course require a measure of agreement among the parties in the House, including in the coalition, on how to phrase and frame the question. But it is not too late to have such a debate.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On Friday evening in North Antrim, we will be celebrating the life and times of Private Quigg, who in 1916 was awarded the Victoria Cross for conspicuous valour at the Somme. Yesterday, we read the wonderful news about Josh Leakey, who has just received the most recent Victoria Cross. Does the Leader of the House plan to do anything here formally to celebrate the life of this modern-day hero, and other heroes who have been awarded the VC, to enable Parliament to pay its respects to those wonderful people?

[Mr Hague]

That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to an individual of whom the whole nation will be extremely proud—the only living recipient of the Victoria Cross in Afghanistan. Everyone who saw pictures of the ceremony on their television screens this morning will be intensely proud of him. We can give consideration as to how the House should recognise people who receive those and other medals for valour and gallantry. Much has been done in this country to recognise them. The brilliant new extension of the Imperial War Museum celebrates the recipients of the Victoria Cross throughout history, for example, and I recommend that everyone should go and see that. Perhaps we can give further consideration to how we can meet the hon. Gentleman’s request.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House speak to his colleagues in government to consider how small, resource-stretched charities such as the amazing Burnham Area Rescue Boat, which is so busy all year round delivering life-saving services and famously was on television every day during the Somerset floods last year, are informed about Government schemes such as the inshore and inland lifeboat grant scheme? Such schemes would help small charities such as BARB to access the funds they need so badly.

[Mr Hague]

I very much congratulate the local charities that my hon. Friend is talking about on the work done during the floods, and the Government are always open to further suggestions to improve information to them. There are many sources of information for charities; Grantmakers and governmentfunding.org.uk are appropriate examples of where charities can find the necessary information. I know that if my hon. Friend has suggestions as to how that can be improved my colleagues will be grateful for them.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will know that many, many months have passed since we agreed the principle of standardised packaging of tobacco. I understand that we are waiting for the detail of the regulation to come through. Can he tell us how that will happen, whether it will be dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and when it will happen?

[Mr Hague]

I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that yet; otherwise I would, of course, have announced it in the business statement. Details will become clear as the days go by. I have made it clear before that regulations could be laid but that they could not be made until after a date in early March—I believe in the first week of March. We have not got to the point when those regulations can be made, and we will announce how we are to do it in due course.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Westcliff high school for boys, Westcliff high school for girls, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls are four superb local grammar schools. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the funding of grammar schools, because at the moment they are perversely discriminated against in funding terms on the grounds of their very success?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend knows, we support the expansion of all good schools, including good grammar schools. I know that the schools he mentions are superb grammar schools in his constituency. Grammar schools, with their combination of high standards and ambition on behalf of the pupils, have a very important role to play in this country, so I certainly would not rule out any debate. Such a debate would have to be pursued through the normal channels, but it would allow him to bring to the House’s attention successful schools such as the Westcliff high schools and Southend high schools in his area.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On the day when the whole House celebrates with pride and congratulates our servicemen on their valour in Afghanistan, would it not be appropriate to consider early-day motion 813?

[That this House records its sorrow at the deaths of 453 British soldiers in Afghanistan and notes the post-conflict judgements by Brigadier Ed Butler that the UK was under-prepared and under-resourced, by General Sir Peter Wall that the calculus was wrong, by Major General Andrew Mackay that the war was a series of shifting plans, unobtainable objectives, propaganda and spin, by former ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles that the UK operation was a massive act of collective self-deception by military and politicians unable to admit how badly it was going, and by General Lord Dannatt that the UK knew it was heading for two considerable size operations and really only had the organisation and manpower for one; and calls for an early inquiry into the conduct of the war in order to avoid future blunders.]

Early-day motion 813 lists the comments since the war of the generals who took part. They universally say that it was futile and an act of self-delusion in which lives were wasted. Is it not right that we consider what happened in that war and have a full inquiry as early as possible, in order to avoid other hubristic politicians sending young men to die in vain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman often pursues this issue and we have discussed it before. These are important issues; it is always important to learn the lessons from any military conflict. I do not agree with his assessment, having been to Afghanistan many times. I have to reflect on the fact that international terrorist bases were operating in Afghanistan before the western military action which are not there today. Our national security has been improved as a result, and the lives of millions of people in Afghanistan have been improved by the action we took. We will disagree on that assessment, but no doubt it can continue to be debated over the years ahead.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

My 13-year-old constituent Lucie Low is suffering from a rare, complex illness and is currently in Medway hospital in sheer agony. The hospital is working with Great Ormond Street hospital and King’s College hospital to help find a diagnosis and support her pain relief. Will the Leader of the House allow for an urgent statement on supporting children who are suffering from rare health conditions? I met Lucie yesterday in hospital and saw the suffering she is in. Please, may I ask everyone to do everything they can to help her and her family at this difficult time?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to stand up for the needs of his constituent and bring the attention of the House to such a case. The Government want to see all children with complex needs receive the very best care and support. I am pleased to say that since 2010 the number of doctors working in paediatrics has risen by 11%, but that does not mean that everything is perfect. I will draw the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health to what he has said about this particular case, so that they can respond to him directly.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given that it was not possible for me to raise in Health questions or with the chief executive of NHS England in a personal meeting the continuing concerns about the procurement of a PET scanner across Staffordshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, will the Leader of the House give assurances, amid concerns about openness and transparency, that there has been no undue influence from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as a board member of Alliance? There are real concerns about the possibility of a monopoly service, which may mean that the contract will need to be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority. Will the Leader of the House find time for a proper, open debate about these continuing concerns?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady has raised related concerns before in the House. I am sorry that she was not able to do so in Health questions, because there will be no more Health questions before the election; we are entering a period in which some Departments will not have further questions before Dissolution. However, she is still able to ask written questions and to seek answers in every other way through correspondence with Health Ministers. I will draw their attention to the matter that she has raised. As Leader of the House, I cannot give her any assurances about what she has asked, but I know that my colleagues will want to attend to what she has raised in the House today.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the spiritual, cultural and musical contribution that cathedrals make to the life of the nation? During the 300th anniversary year of the Three Choirs festival, will the Leader of the House thank all those who have contributed to the festival over 300 years and the cathedrals of Worcester, Gloucester and Hereford that have hosted the event, and particularly Hereford that is hosting it this year?

[Mr Hague]

I certainly congratulate the cathedrals of Hereford, Worcester and Gloucester on this 300th anniversary. Cathedrals play an important part in the life of our country. As the House may be aware, the Prime Minister has asked me to oversee the plans for VE day, just after the general election. We have not yet announced those plans, but I have it in mind that they will involve the cathedrals of the country in an important way. They are an important thing to celebrate, as my hon. Friend has made clear.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Has the Leader had a bid from the Department for Transport for a debate on road safety? Even though our roads are among the safest in the world, the latest casualty statistics show some worrying trends. There is an ongoing concern about cycle safety and the Green Paper on graduated licensing has disappeared, so there is quite an appetite for a debate on road safety before Dissolution. Might that be possible?

[Mr Hague]

Road safety is a very important issue that Members on both sides of the House have always taken seriously and on which broadly the United Kingdom has a strong record by international standards. We have to maintain that, and it is right to debate it if there are any doubts about it. That is a legitimate subject to put forward to the Backbench Business Committee. I cannot offer any Government time for it in the remaining days of the Parliament. The Department for Transport does have questions remaining before Dissolution—next Thursday—and I encourage him to raise the issue then.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we please have a debate on nuisance phone calls, which would allow us to consider the merits of this week’s announcement by the Government on giving more powers to the Information Commission to stop unwanted calls? The proposal has been extremely popular among and warmly welcomed by my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue on which, as he says, the Government made an announcement this week. The statutory instrument was laid this week and will become effective by 6 April. The measure will make it much easier for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take action on nuisance calls, including by issuing monetary penalties. We have just had questions to the Department responsible, and while I cannot necessarily offer a debate, that would be a good issue on which to pursue one in the coming weeks.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

There is much discussion in the corridors of this place about whether the House might dissolve earlier than expected ahead of the general election. Should not hon. Members know now whether that is in the minds of the Leader of the House and his colleagues, given the implications for all of us of the date when we cease to be Members of the House?

[Mr Hague]

Tempting though it would be to spring a great surprise on the hon. Gentleman and others, the date of Dissolution is set down in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 as 30 March, so there is no doubt at all about that date. Of course, it is possible for people to speculate about a date for Prorogation in advance of Dissolution. The Chancellor has announced that he will present his Budget on 18 March, however, and I am sure that it will be necessary for the House to debate that Budget at some considerable length, so clearly the date of Prorogation will not be very much in advance of the date of Dissolution.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Local authorities throughout the country are finalising their budgets for the coming year. Tonight, Labour-run Harrow council will consider proposals from its administration to impose a garden tax on the collection of garden waste and to increase the council tax by 1.99%, thereby avoiding a referendum, while it is closing down popular libraries, including the Bob Lawrence library in my constituency. May we have a debate in Government time so that we can consider what local authorities throughout the country are doing to decimate local services and increase taxes?

[Mr Hague]

The people of Harrow are fortunate to have my hon. Friend to speak up for them when their local authority is behaving in that way. Rather than cutting front-line services and hiking council tax, councils should be making sensible savings, such as through more joint working, better procurement, cutting fraud and using transparency to drive out waste. It is disappointing that Labour-run councils such as Harrow are taking the lazy option of making cuts to the front line, rather than adopting many other local authorities’ best practice of making sensible savings.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

At my recent jobs and skills fair in Edinburgh, which was attended by hundreds of my constituents, one of the main conclusions was that the job-creation powers in the Work programme are best delivered by local authorities. In the last few weeks of his distinguished political career, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy—a legacy for which he will be known the world over—by finding time for the House to pass my Job Creation Powers (Scotland) Bill?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating for effect, tempting though it is to leave such a lasting legacy. Of course, many more powers, including for job creation, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament by whoever wins the general election, because of the implementation of the Smith commission proposals. It will then be important that there is decentralisation within Scotland, because there is a danger for Scotland and Wales that England will become the most decentralised part of the United Kingdom before long, which will mean that devolution is not really leading to power going down to the local level. I know that the hon. Gentleman advocates that, but I cannot, just on that basis, agree to give Government support for his Bill.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Children with Morquio disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and tuberous sclerosis are being badly let down by NHS England, which cancelled its process of approval of the drugs for these ultra-rare conditions. I am sorry to say that these families now feel that they are being fobbed off by the Department of Health and Ministers. May we have an urgent statement to confirm that we will have what we asked for—an interim funding solution to fund these drugs, to be announced before this Parliament is dissolved?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which will be vital for the people most affected by it. As I have already pointed out, we have had the last regular Health questions of this Parliament, but Ministers will continue to respond to written questions and correspondence. I think the best thing I can do to help my hon. Friend is to refer this to the Health Ministers and tell them of his concern so that they can respond to him directly.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Following a campaign by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, Labour colleagues and me, the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement a consultation on rip-off umbrella payroll companies. However, recent written answers show that the Government intend only to tinker around the edges and will not close the loopholes that result in workers losing hundreds of pounds per month. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor will formally announce his plans to the House and explain why low-paid workers continue to lose out under his Government?

[Mr Hague]

There will be many opportunities in the coming month to debate matters with the Chancellor, who is regularly in the House. It will be Treasury questions on 10 March and then, of course, he will present the Budget on 18 March. I do not know when the Chancellor intends to present his final conclusions on that, but we will have debates on the Budget so it will be possible to debate what is or is not in the Budget statement in the course of those debates. That will be the best opportunity for the hon. Lady.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

As the Leader of the House knows, many of my constituents are concerned about the level of immigration and the strain that that places upon the NHS, school places and housing, and the effect it has on the overall wages of workers. May we have a debate on immigration to see whether we can address some of those concerns? In such a debate we can count the number of Members who accept the blindingly obvious: that no Government can control the level of immigration while we are a member of the European Union and have free movement of people.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend will be familiar with the plans that the Prime Minister has set out—the Conservative party’s plans for after the general election, to negotiate a better relationship with the EU and a reformed European Union in which it will be possible for this country to take actions that we cannot take now, particularly on welfare payments and other issues relating to immigration. This is, of course, a very important issue, which my hon. Friend has raised regularly. Part of what we are seeing at present is the impact of this country’s having a dramatically stronger economy than the rest of Europe, which is producing more migration into the UK. In that sense it is a problem of success, but it remains an important issue. Although the shadow Leader of the House raised it in earlier questions, she omitted to mention the completely open-door policy of the Labour Government, during which millions of people migrated to the United Kingdom, and we are certainly not going back to those days.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Last week I met Sam, Charlotte, Sarah and Sara, constituents of mine, who gave me their personal testimonies about the physical, emotional and sexual violence that they had suffered, perpetrated by their ex-partners. I am sure the Leader of the House will commend their bravery in coming forward to talk to their MP about that. They are also campaigning for safe spots with businesses and public agencies in Wythenshawe town centre, where people may go in future for advice and support. My parliamentary office has signed up to be one such safe spot. Is it time that the House authorities considered creating a safe spot here on the parliamentary estate?

[Mr Hague]

That is an interesting idea. I salute the courage of the individuals whom the hon. Gentleman met. I have had many distressing conversations internationally with victims of sexual violence—he will be aware of my campaign on that—and I am very much aware of the courage that it takes to speak out and to speak to other people about such experiences. We will have to consider with other authorities in the House whether it is possible to do what he has just proposed, but we should give consideration to that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give me some guidance on next week’s business. I have a number of private Members’ Bills that I can move on Friday. Will he indicate which ones the Government are going to support so that I know what to concentrate on? Here is the list: the Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Abolition) Bill, the Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill, the Free Movement of Persons into the United Kingdom (Derogation) Bill and—my personal favourite—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill.

[Mr Hague]

I cannot indicate a sudden rush of Government support for the massive legislative programme on which my hon. Friend has embarked so indefatigably—indeed, we have all seen on the BBC how many sleepless nights he had in order to put together this massive legislative programme. As he might anticipate, his Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill could run into handling problems in the coalition Government, to put it mildly, so I do not expect the Government to perform a sharp about-turn on these issues, but he will have to wait until the day—it will be exciting—to see which Bills the Government object to.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The work of VisitWales to promote the tourism industry in Wales would be greatly enhanced were VAT on tourism to be reduced. May we have a debate on reducing VAT on tourism, particularly given its importance for rural areas, which are very dependent on the tourism sector, including counties such as Ceredigion and Montgomeryshire, which is soon to be the Leader of the House’s home county?

[Mr Hague]

I certainly recommend to everybody in the country, and indeed around the world, tourism in Wales where they can see many splendid sites, some very fine countryside and great history. That is true in Ceredigion, where I know tourism is a key industry. There are opportunities coming up in the House—Treasury questions on 10 March and then the Budget debate—to raise issues about VAT. In the meantime, I know that the Welsh Government can and do provide support for tourism, and all of us can set a good example of tourism in Wales.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Looking around the Chamber, it is quite clear that not all of us come from advantaged or affluent backgrounds, and perhaps that includes you, Mr Speaker, and even the Leader of the House. In the previous Parliament, when I was shadow Minister for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and then shadow Minister for Innovation and Science, it became increasingly clear that social mobility was slowing down. I therefore very much welcome the recent figures showing that 20% more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are now going to university. May we have a debate on the growing levels of social mobility resulting from the policies of the coalition Government?

[Mr Hague]

I think that is an excellent idea. That increase in the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is a significant development, and it is very different from what was forecast when tuition fees and other matters were being debated in the House. It is a very serious success. It will help long-term social mobility. I would very much welcome such a debate, although I cannot offer it, given the constraints on Government time. It is the sort of debate that my hon. Friend could put to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Less than 2% of medical research funding in the UK is directed towards the eye and sight-related issues. Given that 40 people a day—about the number of Members in the Chamber today—lose their sight, and up to 2 million people in this country are living with sight loss-related issues, may we have a debate in Government time to see how we can address the issue and increase funding in the next Parliament?

[Mr Hague]

We might not be able to have a debate before Dissolution, but I can tell my hon. Friend that investment in eye-related research by the National Institute for Health Research has risen over the past four years, from £7.1 million a year to £15.6 million. Although that is a small proportion of total research, the amount has doubled under this Government. The institute welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including eye care, so there is every opportunity to expand that research further in the coming months and years.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has done incredible work on sexual violence in conflicts, so he absolutely understands the importance of the issue of violence against women and girls. In this country, two women a week still get killed by a partner or former partner. Will he consider providing some Government time on Thursday 12 March, when we have sixth-form girls coming to shadow their MPs from all parts of the House—also supported by Mr Speaker —so that we can inspire the next generation to say no to domestic abuse and violence?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I congratulate her very much on all she has done to highlight this issue. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time on the Floor of the House, not on 12 March but on 5 March, next week, for a debate to mark international women’s day. That will allow Members to raise issues celebrating the achievements of women but also about tackling violence against women. It is right that the House keeps that on the agenda, and I am determined to keep it on the international agenda. I welcome everything my hon. Friend does on this, including helping to bring people to the House to discuss these things on 12 March.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement on the fact that doctors are charging families £80 every time they sign a cremation consent form? A resident in my constituency, Lee Dangerfield, had to pay £160 to doctors when his father sadly passed away, causing him financial hardship at what was already a difficult time. In 2010, it was estimated that doctors were topping up their salaries by an extra £15 million a year by signing these forms. Will my right hon. Friend write to the Health Secretary about this to see why these fees are necessary, given that this practice seems to be part of the day-to-day job of being a doctor in the free NHS?

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is in his place and has been listening to that question, I shall not need to write to him about it; he has taken note of it. The Government are committed to reform of the death certification system. When a patient dies, it is the statutory duty of the doctor who has attended them in their last illness to issue a medical certificate of cause of death. There is no fee payable for completing that, but there are other forms before cremation of a deceased patient. The proposed reform of the system to which the Government are committed would remove the need for cremation form fees. My right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend’s point about the urgency of tackling this.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

During this Parliament we have had the welcome practice of Government coming to the House in the event that military action is contemplated. What would happen during Dissolution in the very serious event that that might again be the case?

[Mr Hague]

An important convention has grown up that the Government come to the House in the event of military action. During a Dissolution there is no provision for the recall of the House. When Parliament has been dissolved, none of us are MPs after 30 March so it is not possible to recall it. In the highly unusual circumstances of military action that might then arise, of course we continue very much to have a Government who would, I am sure, in any set of circumstances handle the situation extremely responsibly. This Government are always vigilant about our national security, and that will remain the case during Dissolution. I think that in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentions, what would happen in practice is that whoever emerged in government after the general election would need to come to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter for parliamentary debate on the issue.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

We are in the middle of Fairtrade fortnight. On Saturday, I will join Harrogate Fairtrade Campaign at St Peter’s church for its annual fair trade coffee morning. I am rather looking forward to that, having been the borough’s fair trade champion for years, and it is always a very successful event. May we have a debate about fair trade and its impact on millions of people across the developing world, and perhaps also look at what we can do to encourage more towns and boroughs to become fair trade champions?

[Mr Hague]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on fair trade. It would indeed be very good if other towns followed his example and that of Harrogate in having an annual Fairtrade coffee morning and other activities. Fair trade plays a very important role in improving the lives of some of the poorest people in the world, and the UK Government are a committed partner of Fairtrade. I doubt that there will be time for a debate before the Dissolution of Parliament, but I can tell him that the UK’s commitment is demonstrated by the fact that the Department for International Development has recently extended our support for Fairtrade International to £18 million over six years.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Thanks to substantial school capital funding from the current Government, when Lancashire county council was run by the Conservatives funding was allocated for four brand-new primary schools across Pendle, which have now all been built and opened, and for a £6.2 million facelift for West Craven high school. Sadly, since Labour won back control in 2013, Pendle is once again being overlooked. May we have time for a debate in which I can highlight the need for investment in some of our other high schools, such as Park high school in Colne, which I have been calling for since I was elected?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for Pendle on all issues. Since 2011, we have allocated £112 million for the improvement and maintenance of schools in Lancashire, and we have recently announced a further £23.8 million for the coming year, so Pendle ought to have its fair share. Lancashire county council is responsible for the maintenance of community schools in its area, and it is for the council to prioritise its local investment needs, but if it does not give proper priority to Pendle, people will know how to vote in coming elections.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the funding of school transport? There is concern among parents in Rugby, where we have choice in secondary education, including three excellent grammar schools—Lawrence Sheriff, Rugby high and Ashlawn—that the local authority is considering the withdrawal of funding for transport for pupils who do not attend their closest school. If implemented, that could lead to some young people being denied the education to which they are entitled.

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend will know, the statutory position is that the local authority must provide free home-to-school transport for pupils of compulsory school age who attend their nearest suitable school, provided that the school is beyond the statutory walking distance. Beyond that, however, local authorities have discretion about what to do. A debate would certainly allow him to explore further with Ministers his view that all pupils should get the education they deserve, regardless of their ability to pay for transport, which is a very important consideration. I encourage him to pursue such a debate through all the normal channels of Adjournment debates and the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I bring good news from Kettering. Last night, Conservative-controlled Kettering borough council, of which I have the privilege to be a member, announced that it will freeze its share of council tax for the fifth year in a row, while confirming lower car parking charges and protecting funding for front-line services and the voluntary sector. May we have a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government about this remarkable success story? Such a statement could highlight how many other councils have managed to freeze council tax over the lifetime of this Parliament to deliver cost-effective, value-for-money local government services.

[Mr Hague]

The good news from Kettering never seems to end, which is very closely connected with my hon. Friend’s tenure as Member of Parliament for Kettering and, as he says, with the good work of his Conservative-controlled council. That sort of record—freezing council tax for the fifth year running, while reducing other charges and improving local services— is exactly what responsibly run local authorities have been able to achieve. It is a dramatic contrast with the doubling of council tax across the country under the previous Labour Government. It is exactly the kind of thing that could be achieved by more local authorities across the country if they followed the example of Kettering.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that, as part of a wider regulatory framework for hon. Members’ second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.

I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate—he could even shout over the Dispatch Box—before I begin my speech whether, in the light of the attempts by the new chair of the parliamentary Labour party to give the Prime Minister what he said he wanted at Prime Minister’s questions today, it is his intention not to move his amendment to today’s motion.

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

I will most certainly move the Government amendment today. It is an excellent amendment. It is not my role to facilitate the Opposition’s making up their policy as they go along throughout the afternoon.

[Ms Eagle]

I want to make it clear that we are actually trying to facilitate what the Prime Minister said he wanted during Prime Minister’s questions. We are not making up our policy as we go along; we are trying to include all views in it. It is in that spirit that I want to open the debate and move the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which proposes that this House bans MPs from holding paid directorships or consultancies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“reminds hon. Members of their commitment to uphold the Code of Conduct, not least that Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them, that they should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources, that no Member should act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the House and that the acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other material submitted, or intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary to the law of Parliament.”

As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has acknowledged, the Opposition have moved their motion today because of the questions raised concerning the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). It is entirely proper that our two colleagues have referred themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and we should await the outcome of those proceedings. However, as Leader of the House, I can say that, given the high regard in which those two Members have always been held, these circumstances are the cause of some sadness across the House. In the meantime, I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the contribution that the right hon. Member for Blackburn and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington have made to the House, to our national life and to international relations over many years.

It is vital for the health and strength of our democracy that the public have confidence in the integrity of—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I will just start my argument, then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

It is vital for the health and strength of our democracy that the public have confidence in the integrity of the democratic process and in the standards of conduct of all Members of this House. We live in an age of greater accountability and transparency, and the House of Commons has to live up to that. Transparency is an absolutely fundamental need in a democracy, and it would not be acceptable for Government policy to be influenced from outside by anybody in a way that was deliberately out of sight.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I should like to put on record that my interests are declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in the usual way—[Interruption.] And I am proud of those interests, too.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it smacks of extraordinary opportunism on the part of the Opposition to take a whole afternoon to debate this issue? Have they nothing to say about the OECD congratulating the United Kingdom on managing the recovery of our economy after Labour destroyed it? Should not that be the subject of today’s debate?

[Mr Hague]

This is a week of remarkable economic news and good international endorsement of the Government, and that is no doubt partly why the Opposition have chosen to debate other matters today. Nevertheless, the issues of transparency and the reputation of the House are important at all times.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will give way in a moment.

The reinforcement of transparency and accountability need constant effort, and that is part of what has been happening in recent years. At the end of the last Parliament, as the House knows, agreement was reached on the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Since then, more has been done than ever before in Parliament and in government on transparency. We have created a statutory register of lobbyists and appointed the registrar; we are legislating for the recall of MPs; and we have strengthened the rules governing the appointment of Ministers after they leave office to business appointments to cover all appointments or employment they wish to take up within two years of leaving office—there has been a very substantial increase in transparency on Ministers and former Ministers.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who asked first.

[Ian Murray]

The Leader of the House rightly talks about transparency, but may I just push him on that? Can he, and his Government, be wholly transparent with the House and the country by telling us how many jobs, additional to being an MP, he thinks it is acceptable for people in this House to have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I am coming to the details of the motion in a moment. Clearly, right hon. and hon. Members make their own judgments about that, on both sides of the House, and find it entirely possible to do the work of a Member of Parliament.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House share my concern that, understandably perhaps, 10 weeks before an election this rather opportunistic motion is put forward? These issues are not for this House; they are for IPSA. After the expenses scandal, we set up IPSA to look at this and other issues. If we want to unravel what IPSA has done, either on this matter or on the issue of salaries, we do so at our peril.

[Mr Hague]

Salaries and allowances are for IPSA, but there have been independent reports on this issue. Again, I will come to that in a moment, but I just want to finish the point about the substantial increase in transparency that has rightly taken place in recent years. That does not mean we have finished the job of making Parliament more responsive to public concerns. The shadow Leader of the House has said some things about what will be in the Labour manifesto on this, but there will be matters about Parliament in the Conservative manifesto, including reducing the size of the House of Commons, and equalising the size of constituencies, thereby being fair to all parties and all constituencies, and saving money in the process.

[Andrew Gwynne]

But surely the right hon. Gentleman understands, when he talks about transparency, that it is also about how we as Members of Parliament and this House of Commons are viewed from outside. Does he therefore agree with his colleague and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister Lord Heseltine that being an MP is

“not a full-time job”?

[Mr Hague]

I was about to agree with something the Leader of the Opposition said, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me go on to that. Certainly I found when I was Foreign Secretary, for instance, that I still performed the functions of a Member of Parliament, even though I spent probably 90% of my time on being Foreign Secretary.

On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister and said:

“I believe MPs are dedicated to the service of their constituents and the overwhelming majority follow the rules.”

The shadow Leader of the House said a similar thing just now, and I believe that is right, across all parties—I hope I can say that as Leader of the House. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that

“the British people need to know that when they vote they are electing someone who will represent them directly, and not be swayed by what they may owe to the interests of others.”

He wrote that without a hint of irony, having been elected entirely dependent on trade union votes and having presided over the most union-dominated Labour party in 30 years. Of all the candidates selected under his leadership, 61% are union-linked, and more than half of those come from a single union. He did not see the irony in what he was writing.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

Let me just develop this point. There are four very revealing points about the Opposition motion that I want to challenge. It is not a motion to ban second jobs—that would not be its effect—and it is not entirely clear what it would ban and what it would not ban. As one of my hon. Friends said, would it ban someone from being a partner of a professional firm? The motion does not mention that. Are lawyers, accountants and management consultants therefore in a different category, according to the Opposition? There is some discussion now taking place on the Opposition Front Bench about whether it would ban a partner of a professional firm, but there is no clarity here. The motion just asked us to make a decision. It is helpful when making a decision to know what is being put to the House. Does it ban someone from owning their own business? Are they banned from owning their own business if they are a director of that business, but not if they are not a director of that business? Have the Opposition thought that out? Does it mean—and this is an important question—that someone who sets up their own business, succeeds with it, creates jobs and contributes to the British economy is then to be barred from the House of Commons because they are a director of that business? That would be the effect. There are three-quarters of a million more businesses in this country after the past four years, and more of the people who created those businesses need to come into the House of Commons and not be discouraged from doing so. One suspects that, after a short examination, this motion shows as much understanding of business as the shadow Chancellor does on a bad night on “Newsnight”.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

May I restate the concerns of the public and highlight the fact that someone who is the director of a private health care company—as many Conservative Members are—may participate in legislation that brings a direct benefit? That is appalling.

[Mr Hague]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is saying that being a director of one sort of company is not acceptable, but being a director of other sort might be. That is not at all clear in the Opposition motion before us tonight.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

Let me continue, because I am talking about the motion. We only have to examine it for a moment to see that it is calculated to create a headline rather than to solve a problem. The next most revealing point about it is that it is different from the policy the Opposition state outside the House. That policy was described to the Guardian newspaper earlier this week—therefore it must be accurate. It said:

“The opposition Labour leader is expected to put the ban on MPs’ second jobs in his manifesto and say he will consult on proposals to limit the amount of money MPs could earn from outside parliament to 10% or 15% of their salary – in effect, limiting outside earnings to about £10,000.”

It will not have escaped the attention of the House that there is no mention of this cap in the Opposition motion, although it may be part of the wider strategy referred to in the motion. Could this be because there are Opposition Members, including in the shadow Cabinet, who currently earn more than 15% of their salaries outside the House of Commons? I will come to them in a moment.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

As a graduate of the university of life and the school of hard knocks, I can say that this is the best job I have ever had. If a Member of Parliament is doing his or her job properly here and in their constituency, where do they find the time to have other jobs?

[Mr Hague]

Members will have different views about that. The views of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) were given a few years ago when these matters were discussed. He was a Minister at the time. He said:

“My interests do not adversely affect my ability to discharge my public responsibilities. On the contrary, I believe they help me to be a more effective MP precisely because they sustain my practical experience in the relevant fields.”

Members are entitled to hold that view, just as they are entitled to hold the view expressed by my hon. Friend.

[Conor Burns]

May I use this intervention to do what I probably should have done when I intervened on the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), which is to draw the House’s attention to my declarations in the register? My right hon. Friend has written a couple of very successful and enjoyable books while serving in this House. Does he feel that he was not serving his constituents during that period? He probably spent less of his spare time with his wife when he was writing those books, but continued to serve his constituents very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has no need to apologise to me. [Interruption.] Come on—let us try to preserve some decency of spirit in these matters. I say genuinely to the hon. Gentleman that he sought advice on this matter and he has tried to do the right thing. What he has just said is the right thing and I thank him for it.

[Mr Hague]

If I do not get on with this speech, no one will be declaring any interests because time will run out for the debate. When the points of order started, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) was being very kind about the books that I wrote.

That takes me to the point that I was going to make, which I have let the hon. Gentleman’s office know I would make: the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), the shadow Education Secretary, according to the register, earns substantial sums from articles, lecturing and book fees, and those are very good books, on which I congratulate him. Does the Labour party propose to apply this cap to earnings from books? Let me explain the import of that. The only way to ensure that sales from such a book remained under Labour’s cap would be to write an unsuccessful book, of which there are also examples on the Opposition Benches.

By what logic, according to Labour, is it acceptable for a Member to write an unsuccessful book but not a successful one? By what logic is it okay to write an unsuccessful book but not to engage in some other activity no more threatening to the public interest than an unsuccessful book?

[Emily Thornberry]

That was a good joke, but may I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the motion, which, whatever debate there may be about what may or may not be the policy of the next Labour Government, is what we ought to be looking at. It is narrowly about paid directorships or consultancies. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the motion were passed, we would not have the enormous embarrassment of what has happened in the past few days? Surely, on the most minimal change to the status quo, this is a first step. Why are those on the Government Benches against it?

[Mr Hague]

I am discussing the motion and what it means or does not mean. It is difficult to speculate about what would happen or not happen in the future if we pass a motion, the meaning of which is not clear. In any case, the burden of the motion is one with which we disagree. It was not a joke about books. I was making, through a bit of humour, admittedly, a serious point: the Opposition do not know how they would apply a cap to somebody who writes a book, including a member of the shadow Cabinet, or to a farm.

One of my hon. Friends mentioned a farm. A distinguished Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, owned a farm. How is someone with a farm meant to restrict their income to a fixed percentage of their salary? Would Lord Callaghan have had to resign from the House every time there was a good harvest and then try to return to it when the crops failed?

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House not aware that that precise system, though much more rigorous, is already applied in Washington, the home of free enterprise?

[Mr Hague]

I am also aware that we make our own rules in the United Kingdom. The United States is no longer our colony and we are not theirs, and we are entitled to make our own rules.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way again in a moment, but in the interests of the whole House I must make some progress.

The issue was considered in full by an independent and expert body, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which said that it considered it

“desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists.”

I agree. I am leaving this House in five weeks’ time, as hon. Members know—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”]—and I fear for the future of the House of Commons if rules are adopted that risk it consisting entirely of people who are rich or who are professional politicians throughout their lives. That is the danger of the course that the Opposition suggest.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Everybody has been amused by the points that the right hon. Gentleman has been making, quite rightly, but I do not think the public will be particularly amused. The public’s real concern is not about people with a continuing interest; it is about people who become Members of Parliament and then obtain directorships and consultancies and who are perceived as being in something like a system of outdoor relief for grasping MPs.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a distinction between different circumstances, as another Member did earlier, but that distinction is not made in the Opposition motion, and the debate is on the motion. That suggests that if he disagrees to some extent with the Opposition’s policy—

[Gregory Barker]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is exposing the fact that this is not a genuine, sincere motion addressing the governance of the House, but a cheap, opportunistic way of expressing the prejudice of Labour Members? They are anti-business, anti-enterprise and anti-aspiration, and they would trash the economy if they ever got their hands on it again.

[Mr Hague]

I agree with all of that; my right hon. Friend spoke extremely well.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of Government Ministers putting the emoluments from outside directorships into trust so that they escape any scrutiny, and if so, is he content with those arrangements?

[Mr Hague]

There are very clear rules about all that—rules not only on the declarations of Members of Parliament but on ministerial interests. Those rules are very rigorously observed and enforced, in my experience in government, and I hope that they have been under Governments of all parties. Transparency about ministerial interests and the interests of people who have left office as Ministers has been greatly strengthened in recent years. This is not a static situation; constant improvements have been made.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

If the Leader of the House were to have a change of heart, I am sure that he would be warmly welcomed by the Conservative association in Kensington. Does he agree that if we are concerned to establish, and to give the public confidence in, the independence of MPs in serving the public, then it is not just their earnings that are of relevance but the source of all financial support they have, including that which goes towards their re-election?

[Mr Hague]

That could be a valid point, and I want to address it in closing my speech.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will try to fit in the hon. Gentleman before I finish.

There are two other revealing aspects of this motion. First, the Opposition make the proposal now, when the issue is in the news, but have done nothing to enforce it in their own party in the meantime. Labour Members—I make no criticism of them for this—are directors of building supply companies and investment companies, and non-executive directors of mining companies and breweries. They are paid as everything from expert advisers to executive mentors, no less. It must be nice to be an executive mentor. Does an executive mentor fall within the definition of “director”?

[Ms Angela Eagle]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could clarify that.

[Ms Eagle]

To make it clear again, the parliamentary Labour party will change its rules and its standing orders so that from the start of the next Parliament no Labour MP will have remunerated directorships or consultancies. All our candidates and all our existing Members of Parliament will have to change their arrangements in order to comply with this change of rules. Will the right hon. Gentleman now commit to his party doing the same?

[Mr Hague]

No, as is very clear from my speech. I have made the point that the Committee on Standards in Public Life made. The hon. Lady has said what the Labour party will do in the next Parliament, but I hope she will admit that she has to deal with the points I have been making about how to define these responsibilities, because they are not dealt with at the moment. There is no clear answer from the Opposition even about what their policy is.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way two last times. I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I will then give way to one of my hon. Friends.

[Karl Turner]

The Leader of the House has been very generous in giving way. He made a point that he thought was funny—frankly, the electorate would not think it was funny—about the former Prime Minister Jim Callaghan. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made it clear that Ministers, which would of course include the former Prime Minister, have to put directorships into trust while serving as Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman’s point was not funny, and it was not correct, was it?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it was correct. It is not for me to say whether it was funny; others will be the judge. I was making a point about the Opposition motion. If such a motion is so easy to make fun of, it may not have much chance of being a serious policy. The public would not find it funny if we adopted rules that could not be enforced, were confusing or damaged the future of Parliament, which is the central point.

[Mr Raab]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

Let me give way to my hon. Friend. This will have to be the last intervention.

[Mr Raab]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My interests all relate to writing columns for newspapers and suing one of them.

Is it my right hon. Friend’s view that the definition of consultancies would include drawing a six-figure salary for being a BBC guest presenter? It would, first, relate to public money; and secondly, hardly draw in outside experience from beyond the Westminster bubble.

[Mr Hague]

Whether that would come under the definition of consultancy is another interesting question for the Opposition to consider. They have to define such things if they are to present their policy more clearly. I hope that they will be able to do so the next time they present it.

The final revealing point about the Opposition motion is that it talks about some forms of outside income, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) has just said, it does not address the direct influence on Members of trade union sponsorship and support at elections and between elections. If the Labour party gains more seats at the coming election, it will have to address that issue at the beginning of the next Parliament. For the 106 target seats it has named, it has selected 105 candidates, of whom 83 are union linked, including 49 who are linked to Unite. It is by far the greatest single outside influence on Members of Parliament —securing their selection as candidates, supporting their election as MPs, paying for their election, dictating the policies of their party—yet they are breathtakingly silent on that issue. We would not enhance the reputation of Parliament by adopting a motion put forward in a hurry to grab a headline, but which does not address that fundamentally important issue about our Parliament and democracy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

House of Commons Commission Bill

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This has throughout been a matter for the House. The role of the Government has been to facilitate and support the House in reaching a decision and in making these changes. The House has demonstrated its support for the recommendations of the Governance Committee implemented by this Bill. The Bill is one strand—an important strand—of the package of measures that is currently being taken forward by the Commission and the House. I am sure that this package overall will help to bring the governance arrangements of the House up to date and deliver improvements for Members, staff and the public.

Once again, I thank everyone who has contributed to this work and strongly support it as Leader of the House. I commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.

[Thomas Docherty]

Again, I will be brief. I join the Leader of the House in thanking not just the Governance Committee and its staff but all the House service, including the secretary of the Commission, Mr Twigger, who is also the Clerk of the Finance and Services Committee, and Helen Wood, the Clerk of the Administration Committee, for all their work in taking this forward.

I am slightly disappointed by the Leader of the House. Those of us who have been watching the documentary series about the House of Commons will recall him saying that he once had a 24-hour speech prepared. Given the quickness with which we have moved through this, perhaps he could have been tempted to give us an excerpt from that speech. I think we still have four and half hours left if he wants to fill up the time.

[Mr Hague]

I have to say that while watching those programmes we have seen aspects of the hon. Gentleman himself that many of us never wish to see again. There are many things set out in them that are not to be brought on to the Floor of the House today.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that very helpful intervention.

As regards making good progress, it is absolutely crucial that the Finance and Services Committee and the Administration Committee move very quickly after the general election to fill the two posts on the Commission. I hope that the Committee of Selection will therefore make one of its early priorities finding time to establish at least initial versions of the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee so that we can fulfil this process.

This has been a good and very consensual debate. We wish the Bill all the best in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

House of Commons Commission Bill

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I hope not to detain the House for long in considering a very short and, I think, widely supported Bill. The House is familiar with the background to the Bill, which arises from the report of the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was established following the halting of the recruitment process for a new Clerk of the House in September last year. The Committee’s report was fully debated in the House on 22 January. As I emphasised during that debate, the Chair and members of the Committee did an admirable job. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in particular, and to the members of the Committee from both sides of the House who worked with him, because they successfully reconciled a number of different views and presented the House with a coherent package that clearly, as shown in our debate in January, commands its confidence.

Most of the Committee’s recommendations are for the House to take forward in other ways and as a member of the House of Commons Commission I can assure the House that that is exactly what is happening. The Commission has published three updates so far on progress in implementing the recommendations and will continue to keep the House informed. A very small number of recommendations from the Governance Committee that relate to the Commission require legislative action, hence the need for this Bill.

The House of Commons Commission is established under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. To meet the recommendations of the Governance Committee, the Bill has three core provisions, all of which take the form of amendments to the 1978 Act. First, the Bill increases the number of Back-Bench members of the Commission from three to four. That will allow for a wider range of views across the House to be represented and will reduce the likelihood of the Government inadvertently finding themselves with a majority on the Commission.

Secondly, the Bill provides for the appointment of two external members and two officials to the Commission. The appointment of these additional members is designed to provide a wider perspective to support the Commission’s work and to embed the closer integration between setting the strategic direction and the implementation of resulting policy decisions that the Committee called for. The evidence to the Governance Committee suggested that the link between the current Management Board, which is to become the Executive Committee, and the Commission needed to be strengthened. This amendment will provide for that to happen. As a start in that direction, the existing external members of the Management Board have been invited to attend meetings of the Commission and they have started doing so.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for finding the time to make this modest change. Can he update the House on whether it will be possible to have the Clerk and Director General in place at the beginning of the new Parliament so that these provisions can take effect immediately?

[Mr Hague]

It should certainly be possible to have the Clerk in place. The recruitment process is well under way and the period for applications closed last week, on 16 February, and an interview panel has been established. It is very much our intention on the Commission that a new Clerk of the House will be appointed before Dissolution. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Governance Committee recommended that the Clerk should be in place and in a position to be one of those determining the appointment of the Director General, so there is a sequence to this. The process of recruiting the Director General has also begun, but given that Dissolution is only 21 House of Commons days away, that will not be completed before Dissolution. It will be well advanced, however, and it will be up to the new Commission, early in the next Parliament, including the new Clerk, to complete the appointment of the new Director General.

Thirdly, the Bill adds to the functions of the Commission a specific requirement to set the strategic priorities and objectives for the services provided by the House Departments. It is important that the Commission is given this specific responsibility in view of the number of different bodies involved in the governance of the House. This amendment to the 1978 Act will place direct responsibility on the Commission to provide strategic leadership for the services provided by the Departments of the House. It will then be for the Commission to set priorities and the House administration to respond accordingly.

As a member of the Commission and, I think, like all other members of the Commission, I am very supportive of the changes proposed, which should make the governance of the House more representative, more transparent and more cohesive. We can say more about the individual provisions when we move into Committee, but I think they are straightforward and fully in line with the Governance Committee’s proposals. Indeed, we have worked with the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, with the Opposition and with officials from across the House to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the Committee’s report. I am particularly grateful for the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in taking this forward so rapidly.

It is my firm expectation that with the support of the House today the Bill can progress through both Houses before Dissolution so as to ensure that the new Parliament can benefit from the governance of the new Commission at the earliest possible stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Petitions and e-petitions

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

Indeed, the annunciator froze altogether during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill earlier, which I hope was not a comment on the complexity of the discussion.

I rise to support the motion in my name and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I join in the congratulations to him on his OBE today. I also join in the warm welcome, from all around the House, for the report and the changes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), my predecessor, said, the right to petition Parliament is an historic right. There was a time in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when the Table of the House groaned beneath the weight of the hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions against the slave trade and slavery and so on, which were part of changing the political culture and the sense of what was politically possible. Given, therefore, that new technology enables millions of people to get in touch with us directly on a wide range of issues, it is right that we make these arrangements.

I also join in paying tribute not only to the Procedure Committee, which has done outstanding work on this subject, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for strongly supporting this system when he was Leader of the House and for making it simple and straightforward for me to continue with that support. The system that has been running in this Parliament, which the Government established after 2010, can be considered very successful. I think that more than 10 million individuals have signed one or more of 32,000 e-petitions, more than 150 of which have reached 10,000 signatures and received a formal response from the Government. To date, 37 e-petitions have reached 100,000 signatures, making them eligible to be considered for debate, and 31 of those have so far been debated, either in the Chamber or Westminster Hall, with one more planned for debate next month. It is a straightforward means by which people can submit a petition, raise an issue and press for action. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just said, we have seen important debates as a result—Hillsborough is a good example, but also on the badger cull, Sophie’s choice, female genital mutilation and so on. These were important debates in which there was no shortage of Members wishing to take part and which provided among the most constructive and memorable debates this Parliament.

Last May, the House agreed unanimously to a motion supporting the establishment of a collaborative e-petitions system, and since that debate, the Procedure Committee has been working hard to bring to the House proposals for such a system. The motion is the result of that work, and I am grateful for how the Committee has engaged with officials in my office and from the Government Digital Service in reaching its conclusions. The fact that the current Government system has worked so well is reflected in the Committee’s recommendation that the joint system be based on the existing Government e-petition site, redesigned and rebranded to show that it is jointly owned by the House and the Government. I support that approach. The use of a platform already developed will save time and minimise the costs of the new system.

The Procedure Committee recommends some useful changes to the process of e-petitioning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out. I need not go through them in detail, but the changes requiring an additional five signatures to that of the creator of a petition before moderation and standardising the duration of petitions to six months are sensible changes. The most significant recommendation in this, the big enchilada, as he described it—not the words I was going to use to describe this important reform—is the creation of a Petitions Committee. It will be a major change and should be the catalyst for a fundamental change in the relationship between Parliament and the petitioner. The greater range of available outcomes and the use of House staff to moderate e-petitions should all improve the engagement of this House with petitioners. All those things will be a very important step forward.

There will be a cost to the House in agreeing the motion—those costs were set out by my hon. Friend—but there is agreement, certainly among the Front Benches, that the establishment of a new Committee will require us to consider a corresponding reduction elsewhere. However, that will be a decision for the new Parliament, which is now not far away. In response to the question about the Government’s mitigating the costs, it has been agreed that we will share the costs. That will certainly mitigate the cost to the House, and my hon. Friend set out the precise numbers involved.

If the House approves the motion, the necessary changes to Standing Orders will be implemented at the start of the next Parliament. The current Government e-petition site will close when Parliament is dissolved on 30 March. The aim will be to establish the new site as soon as possible after the election of the Chair and members of the new Petitions Committee at the start of the next Parliament, allowing time for the memorandum of understanding and terms and conditions for the site, as appended to the Procedure Committee report, to be agreed between the Petitions Committee, on behalf of the House, and the Government.

I urge all Members to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

House of Commons Commission Bill (Allocation of Time)

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the House of Commons Commission Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(c) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker or Chairman shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker or Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(9) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8).

(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(c) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith:

(i) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith:

(i) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(f) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with

the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(g) As soon as the House has:

(i) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or

(ii) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

(10) (a) any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10).

(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.

(c) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with

the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

(12) (a) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.

(b) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(c) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(d) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), the Chair shall:

(i) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and

(ii) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(e) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

(14) (a) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(18) The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(19) (a) Sub-paragraph (b) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(b) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(21) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

The motion provides time for the House of Commons Commission Bill to be considered today. It guarantees up to six hours of debate, with up to four hours on Second Reading and a further two hours in Committee and on the remaining stages. How much of that time is used in considering the Bill is of course a matter for the House, and it does not look as if such restrictions on debate will turn out to be necessary, but importantly the motion also provides for us to consider all stages of the Bill today. In view of the non-contentious nature of the Bill, the absence of any amendments, and the important business that follows, I am hopeful of swift progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Swift progress indeed.

Question put and agreed to.