Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I wonder if the Leader of the House will give us the business for a couple of days next week.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 20 May—Remaining stages of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 21 May—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to Syria.

The business for the week commencing 3 June will be:

Monday 3 June—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 4 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Energy Bill.

Wednesday 5 June—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 6 June—There will be a debate on a motion relating to student visas, followed by general debate on pollinators and pesticides. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 June will include:

Monday 10 June—Second Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 6 June will be:

Thursday 6 June—Debate on the ninth report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on Drugs: Breaking the Cycle.

May I also take this opportunity to be among the first to congratulate the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on her re-election?

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and the business that will follow yet another recess. I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her unanimous re-election without an election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, which is to her enormous credit.

Next week the House will return, albeit briefly, to debate the remaining stages of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. This will ensure that the historic progress on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality accomplished by the previous Government will be consolidated. I thank the Leader of the House for making two days available for Report and Third Reading. Will he consider doing that for other Bills? After all, his legislative programme is hardly packed.

Back in February, the Prime Minister was triumphant about his EU budget deal. He tweeted:

“Today we agreed the first ever cut in the EU budget and the British rebate is safe. This is a great deal for Britain.”

Three months on, we have learned that the UK will have to pay £770 million extra. May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on the budget, and may we seek an assurance from him that it will not go up again?

Last week, as all the grandeur of the state opening of Parliament unfolded, the Government presented a united front and revealed a mouse of a legislative programme. Before the Cap of Maintenance was even back in the wardrobe, Tory Eurosceptics had tabled a motion regretting their own Government’s Queen’s Speech. No. 10 said that it was “relaxed”.

By the weekend, the Tory rebellion had gathered pace and the Cabinet joined in. Both the Education Secretary and the Defence Secretary announced that they wanted out of the European Union, but that, sadly, the Liberal Democrats would not let them have a vote on it. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) proclaimed that if the rebellion ended the coalition Government, “so be it”. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) pronounced that the Prime Minister’s referendum plan was “not yet believable”. Meanwhile, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) denounced the rebels as “irresponsible” and “offensive”, and the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that it would be a catastrophe to quit the EU.

As the Tory party descended into chaos, the Prime Minister shared with us his unique concept of firm leadership. A leader should proclaim that he is “intensely relaxed”, leave the country, blame the Liberal Democrats, panic, and rush to publish an entirely spurious private Member’s Bill that contains no implementation clause and no money resolution.

In 2006, the Prime Minister said that the Conservative party should stop “banging on about Europe”. In 2009, he said that his party’s position on Europe was “settled” and promised that he

“will not have an undisciplined team whoever it is. Full stop.”

However, last night 116 of his Back Benchers voted against him in the 35th Tory rebellion on Europe in this Parliament. If that is not an undisciplined team and a Prime Minister who follows his party rather than leads, will the Leader of the House tell me what is?

In last night’s rebellion, 13 Parliamentary Private Secretaries voted against the Government. I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a clause in the ministerial code:

“Parliamentary Private Secretaries are expected to support the Government in important divisions in the House. No Parliamentary Private Secretary who votes against the Government can retain his or her position.”

That seems to be fairly clear. Will the Leader of the House confirm that those PPSs will be sacked, or is the Prime Minister going to rewrite the ministerial code?

In light of the Tories’ panicked Back-Bench EU Bill, I also want to draw the attention of the Leader of House to some comments that he might remember making to the Procedure Committee on private Members’ Bills a few weeks ago. He said that

“if a Government really wants a Bill and it is contentious, it should find time in the legislative programme for it.”

Am I correct, therefore, that the Government do not want this Bill at all?

In “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, Karl Marx wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. With the antics last night, we are firmly in the farcical stage and we have a Conservative party determined to prove that Karl Marx was right.

When the economy is flatlining, living standards are falling, and people up and down Britain are suffering real pain, people will not forgive a Government who are too focused on their own obsessions to address the challenges that the country faces.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the forthcoming business.

On the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, we are providing two days on Report. I remind the hon. Lady that under the last Government, there were Sessions in which virtually no Bills were given two days on Report.

[Ms Eagle]

We had more Bills.

[Mr Lansley]

That is not the case. Seventeen Bills were announced in the Gracious Speech last week, which is in line with the single year numbers we saw in a number of Sessions under the last Government, including 2008 and 2009. As part of the reforms of this House, and of improving scrutiny, we gave 14 Bills two days on Report over the last two Sessions, and we are proud that the business I have just announced will give both the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and the Energy Bill two days on Report. The hon. Lady is barking up completely the wrong tree.

The Prime Minister was told by the Labour party that he would not deliver a reduction in the EU budget, but he did deliver one. As a consequence, our rebate is protected and we will have the opportunity to debate that in due course. Once the decision is through the Council, we will be able to bring forward a Bill to ratify the EU own resources decision.

The legislative programme is not a mouse. Not only was it a full programme, but we are making good progress with it in a way that is, I think, exemplary. Ten Bills have been published in the week since the Gracious Speech: the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, which is important as it tackles an area of reform that has not been tackled previously; the Care Bill, which is important and cannot be called an insignificant piece of legislation; the Intellectual Property Bill; the Local Audit and Accountability Bill; the Mesothelioma Bill; the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill; the Pensions Bill; the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill; and the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill. All have been published within a week of the Gracious Speech and that is a substantial programme of legislation.

The hon. Lady’s final points were all, in one way or another, about the vote last night, which in all respects proceeded from a complete misapprehension. The point is that the Government did not have a policy on whether there should be an EU referendum Bill, and so voting for the amendment last night—which many of my colleagues in the Conservative party did, as did Labour Members and a Liberal Democrat Member—was not voting against Government policy because the Government did not have a policy on that. Therefore, the rest of the hon. Lady’s argument does not follow. The simple point is that what is in the Queen’s Speech is agreed Government policy. There may be no Government policy on something that was not in the Queen’s Speech, so of course Ministers could not vote for it, but everybody else was able to vote as they saw fit, which is precisely what they did last night.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the potential misuse of money by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? IPSA appears to have employed incredibly expensive lawyers from Matrix Chambers in pursuing what looks like a county court action. That can be explained only if it is trying to intimidate the Members involved, which would be quite improper. May we have a response on that from those on the Front Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will say to my right hon. Friend that because this matter relates to a particular case, I do not want to talk about it in any detail from the Dispatch Box. For his convenience, and that of the House, I note that there is scope for the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which I am a member, to ask questions about how IPSA undertakes its activities and the value for money it achieves. We held public evidence sessions last Tuesday, which of course affords an opportunity for IPSA to be held accountable.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago after the fire at Daw Mill colliery I asked him for a statement on the coal industry, with particular reference to UK Coal, which owns another two pits—Thoresby and Kellingley? I drew his attention specifically to the fact that because Daw Mill was the big money pit owned by UK Coal, the other two pits could be in serious jeopardy. More importantly, it could cost the Government up to £450 million to pay out for the pensions and redundancies if UK Coal goes under. Would it make a lot of sense for this Government, this coalition, to say to the coal authority that they should be allowed to take over the remaining assets of UK Coal and save what remains of the coal industry—in other words, to nationalise it?

[Mr Lansley]

I do remember the questions the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have asked on that subject. I repeat that I cannot, in the House, remotely enter a discussion of the commercial prospects of UK Coal. However, I again say that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is closely engaged. I will encourage him to correspond with the hon. Gentleman and other Members who are directly involved.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is aware that the Foreign Office is undertaking an initiative on preventing sexual violence. The Department for International Development has a four-pillar programme to help women and girls worldwide, which is encouraging, particularly in conflict areas, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where women and girls are particularly vulnerable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will shortly chair the G8. May we have a statement on how he will produce his initiatives? Preventing sexual violence is important for the world. Will the Prime Minister also ensure that we do not forget that boys and men also need education to stop sexual violence?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that specific mention was made in the Gracious Speech of the priority that the Government give to the prevention of sexual violence in conflict worldwide. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary recently updated the House from the Dispatch Box on the wide range of measures that have been taken in that respect, as has the Secretary of State for International Development. If I may, I will see what opportunities there might be for the House to be given further updates, particularly in anticipation of the fact that the matter will be part of the agenda we put forward for the G8.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 79, which is in my name and the names of other hon. Members, on Contour Homes and the Ferguson Court lift in my constituency?

[That this House condemns Contour Homes for its culpable negligence with regard to Ferguson Court in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton; regards it as inexcusable that its failure in its duty has meant that the lift at Ferguson Court has been out of order since October 2012; understands that, due to its incompetence and lack of concern, the lift will not be repaired or replaced until 30 July at the earliest, a period of nine months in which elderly and disabled tenants have been unable to cope to the extent that some of them have been unable to leave their homes; takes the view that Contour Homes has failed in its duty and role as social landlords; and calls on the relevant authorities to consider actively whether Contour Homes should be allowed to continue as social landlords.]

That social housing organisation has been so negligent in its duties towards tenants of that block of flats, many of whom are elderly and disabled, that they have had no lift since last October. Despite the way in which I have pushed Contour Homes, they will definitely not have a lift before 30 July. Contour Homes is a social landlord. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity to consider the matter, and ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to look into whether such an organisation—if it can be blessed with such a word—is fit to run social housing?

[Mr Lansley]

I had an opportunity to look at that early-day motion as the right hon. Gentleman asked his question. He once again commendably raises the interests of his constituents. I can see how distressing the problem must be for them. Social landlords in that sense should be accountable not least through their contract with social services in respect of many of those residents. Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government will answer questions in the House on Monday 3 June, which might afford the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to ask a question. The relevant authorities and Contour Homes will have taken note of what he has said in the House. Perhaps the situation will have been rectified by Monday 3 June, but if not, he can ask another question of my hon. Friends.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Those who work in schools who suspect or witness abuse are guided, but not required by law, to report their concerns via local procedures to a school’s designated senior member of staff, his or her deputy, or another senior member of staff. It is easy to see that the potential for damage to a school’s reputation might cause any senior member of staff to be conflicted, and not to pass such concerns on to the police or local authority. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the merits of introducing a legal obligation on all teachers and other staff in schools to report directly to the police or a local authority designated officer?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education to respond directly to her, but from my recollection—I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Protection of Children Act 1999—the barring scheme applies not simply to acts of negligence or abuse, but to omissions in relation to acts of abuse. In that sense, the guidance is quite strong. People who are in positions of responsibility for children should act if they see evidence of abuse or they will risk being barred from working in a responsible position.

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

The Leader of the House will share my concern that I did not come high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills. I will content myself with an early debate, if he could arrange it, on the accountancy and auditing profession. Is he not concerned by the increasing evidence that the auditors of great banks have failed us? They never blew the whistle and they never did the auditing job properly. We are now in a situation where KPMG’s senior partner is the chair of the new Financial Conduct Authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate so that the House can scrutinise this scandal?

[Mr Lansley]

Given the range of aspects involved, the hon. Gentleman may find that this is a suitable subject not only for an Adjournment debate but for consideration by the Backbench Business Committee, given its reconstitution. Members across the House with a range of interests in the auditing process would then have the opportunity to air them.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

This week, on the anniversary of President Hollande’s presidency, it was announced that France has entered a triple-dip recession. Can we therefore please have a debate on the impact on UK exporters of the economic policies currently being pursued in France, such as increased Government spending, increased Government borrowing and the implementation of a 75% top rate of tax—an economic approach consistently and repeatedly supported by the Opposition?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Of course, it is a little early for the Opposition to decide the subject of their Opposition day debate on 5 June. Given what my hon. Friend says, they might like to have a debate on the policies they wish to pursue. A year ago, the Leader of the Opposition said, “What President Hollande is seeking to do in France, I want to do in Britain.” Would that not be a suitable subject?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will know that last Friday, at a Special Immigration Appeals Commission hearing, Abu Qatada made an offer to leave the country voluntarily if the treaty with Jordan was ratified by the Jordanians. Given that it has taken seven years and successive Home Secretaries to remove Abu Qatada, can he tell the House whether that offer has been accepted? When can the House have an opportunity to debate the treaty before it is ratified?

[Mr Lansley]

I fear that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer he is looking for, but I will of course be in contact with the Home Secretary to see if I can procure an answer for him.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Over the last decade, transport capital spending in London has been about 10 times that of the regions. Much, but not all of that, has been caused by spending on Crossrail. Recent comments by the Mayor of London imply that he has momentum and Government support for Crossrail 2. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be no money spent on even preparatory work for Crossrail 2 without a full debate in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend refers to the momentum of the Mayor of London, which is, frankly, unstoppable. On his point about infrastructure investment, I hope he knows that, in addition to the investment in London, which is vital to the economy of the country as a whole, we are proceeding with many important investments in other parts of the country, including £1.8 million for local authority major schemes, and the pinchpoint fund, which provides £317 million for 123 projects across the country. Of course, the benefits from the biggest item of infrastructure planning, High Speed 2, will assist major cities right across the country, including those in the north-west.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This is export week. If the Government are serious about promoting exports, why did they not arrange for a debate on them in the House during export week, and may we have one soon?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that matters relating to growth were entirely relevant to yesterday’s Queen’s Speech debate on growth and the economy and that jobs and business, including export matters, were debated last Friday—I am sure he was in his place for that debate—so the subject of exports has been relevant to debates in the past week. He is right, though, that exports are essential. If we are to get growth, we cannot rely, as has been the case in the past, on debt-fuelled growth, whether Government debt or consumer debt. We need more balanced and sustainable growth, not least by winning in the global race, and that is what we have set out to do.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

To give the House a break from the Leader of the House’s colleagues’ obsessing about Europe, may we have, before the summer break, a serious debate about the Commonwealth countries and south Asia? There is a controversial Commonwealth conference in Sri Lanka, there has been a recent terrible tragedy with wider implications and civil disorder in Bangladesh, there is a new Government of Pakistan, there are difficulties in the Maldives and there is an Indian Government with issues of civil disorder and the death penalty. I think that many colleagues would appreciate an extended debate on those countries and their policies.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making an important point, not least in referring to the tragic events in Dhaka, by which many of us have been deeply shocked. All those issues, including the elections in Pakistan, demonstrate the importance of good governance and democracy in many of these countries. In Pakistan, we have seen for the first time the democratic election of a new Government following a full term from a previous democratically elected Government, which is positive. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a debate on all these countries, but it might be appropriate if he or others were to seek such a debate from the Backbench Business Committee. The prospect of the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would be a good basis for an application.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think I recall the Leader of the House saying on a previous occasion that he is a regular train traveller, so he will be aware that, at least according to train announcements now, trains do not stop at stations anymore. Instead, they have “calling points” and “embarkation stops”, and apparently some trains now “platform”. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport about the adoption of a universal term for station stops, because as well as irritating regular travellers, the other terms used confuse tourists? Perhaps I could make a bid for a simple term: could we call them “stations”?

[Mr Lansley]

It is a good question. I will ask my hon. Friends in the Department for Transport about it, although they might be loth to standardise everything in the railways. I must say I agree with the hon. Gentleman, though, about the announcements. I particularly liked the announcement made one morning when we arrived late at King’s Cross: “We apologise to our customers”—not passengers, of course—“for the delay to the service this morning. This was due to the late running of trains.” It was a statement of the obvious.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Parliament has been at the centre of political debate this week, partly thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting yesterday’s amendment. What has gone unnoticed about the vote, however, is that 117 coalition MPs, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat, voted for the amendment, but only 36 voted against. May we have a statement next week from the appropriate Minister to explain how we get Government legislation introduced? Does the Deputy Prime Minister have a complete veto, despite what coalition MPs voted for?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think we need a statement, because I can give my hon. Friend an explanation now. Government Bills are introduced on the basis of agreed Government policy and the relative priority of the various measures. In this case, the issue is that where two parties are in a coalition Government, it requires the agreement of the two parties. It is a simple matter; it is a necessity of coalition. Coalition gives rise to its own particular requirements, and that is one of them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we have a debate on who runs Tory Britain? The Queen’s Speech did not contain a Bill to reduce the effects of smoking or excessive drinking. The promised Bill on lobbying is again not included, despite the Prime Minister saying in an impassioned speech a fortnight before the general election that this would be the next scandal. Is not the answer to “Who runs Tory Britain?” the lobbyists, who are red in tooth and claw, in greater numbers and with greater power than ever, and running the country in the interests of their greedy paymasters?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but that is completely wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that certain measures were not included in this Queen’s Speech because policy had not been finalised and consultations were continuing. That is not a consequence of lobbying; it is a consequence of the processes that are necessary to finalise policy.

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

Will my right hon. Friend allow time during Government business to debate the 111 out-of-hours emergency number? He will recall that when he was Secretary of State for Health and I had cause through family experience to use that number, I drew to his attention some simple remedies that could be effected. A debate at the earliest opportunity would be very useful.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Opposition chose health and care as the subject of Monday’s debate, when these issues were quite properly raised. There have clearly been operational difficulties associated with aspects of 111, in particular with the three new providers in the south-west, the south-east and Oxfordshire during its introduction in April. Equally, we could go back much further. For example, 10 areas of the country were running NHS 111 on a pilot basis when I left the Department of Health in September last year, and in many places it is operating successfully. What Members throughout the House need to understand is that the 111 service provides something that everybody has a right to expect, which is a straightforward non-emergency mechanism for accessing all aspects of the NHS.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that the security staff in this building do a very good job in a very efficient and friendly way, that we rely on them and that we work with them very well indeed. He will also be aware that negotiations are ongoing on a new roster arrangement for them. Unfortunately, the new rosters were imposed without the agreement of the staff, despite ongoing negotiations, which resulted in industrial action being taken on Tuesday. Will he convey to the House of Commons Commission and the Metropolitan police the fact that many Members of this House find it quite unacceptable that a new system should be imposed while negotiations are ongoing? Will he also urge them to continue with negotiations rather than imposing a new arrangement and to recognise the value of the co-operation and good will of those staff, which all Members enjoy at present?

[Mr Lansley]

I of course endorse what the hon. Gentleman said in the early part of his question, but I would remind him that we are, as I understand it, in the midst of negotiations between the House service and the Metropolitan police, as contractors, about security. That is not a matter for me, but as a member of the House of Commons Commission, I know that its members will have listened to what he has said. It is always our objective in the House of Commons Commission to work with staff to create something that not only is the best possible service, but shows the House as an exemplary employer.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on drug rehab centres? They play a vital role in our community, but the industry is largely unregulated and standards vary greatly across the country. In Bournemouth we are witnessing a worrying trend, whereby a number of London-based councils are sending some of their residents who require drug rehab to programmes in Bournemouth, without informing the council. That practice needs to stop.

[Mr Lansley]

What my hon. Friend says is interesting. I will of course raise with my hon. Friends at the Home Office, how the system is working, but from our point of view we need to ensure proper regulation where required and move increasingly towards payment by results, a mechanism that I hope will enable us to deliver more effective drug rehabilitation.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the reforms to legal aid and judicial review? Judges are now having to support litigants in person instead of hearing reasoned argument, which is seriously undermining the rule of law and weakening one of the checks and balances on the state. May we please have an urgent debate on that issue?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have noticed that the Ministry of Justice will be answering questions on Tuesday, and she might wish to raise this matter at that time. I cannot offer Government time, but such issues may also be raised on the Adjournment or, collectively with other Members, through the Backbench Business Committee. Many days in this Session have been provided for the Backbench Business Committee. I am happy to listen to applications for Government time for general debates, but the intention was for Back-Bench Members collectively to decide where their priorities lie.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Figures last week show that the massive growth in payday loans, which started under the last Government, is continuing and the debt charity StepChange has given an example of a couple who had 36 payday loans between them. May we have a debate on the problem of high-cost debt and on how to encourage responsible lending?

[Mr Lansley]

The statistics from StepChange to which my hon. Friend refers serve to confirm the Government’s view that there are serious problems within that market that need to be addressed. That is why we announced an action plan on 6 March. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Office of Fair Trading is prioritising enforcement and compliance. It will also announce in the next few months whether it will be referring the industry to the Competition Commission in the light of concerns over the way in which the market operates.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

May I press the Leader of the House further on the issue of a register of lobbyists? We have already had one lengthy consultation, myriad answers from the Dispatch Box and two private Members’ Bills, including a particularly brilliant one in my name. If the Government had got behind that Bill, it would now be on the statute book.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course look—as Ministers regularly do—at how we can secure progress in relation to our commitment to this, but it is a complex area, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) has explained to Members at this Dispatch Box. I am sure that she will have a further opportunity to discuss this matter with Members.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In May 1904, in front of a crowd of 10,000 people, the international philanthropist Andrew Carnegie opened Kettering library, having provided £8,000 for its construction. Last Sunday, a smaller but no less select crowd celebrated the refurbishment of the library and the reopening of the main entrance, thanks to the good work of the Friends of Kettering Library and of Northamptonshire county council. May we have a debate in Government time on libraries and their importance to local communities?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point on behalf of the library in his constituency, and I am pleased to hear about its refurbishment. He and Members across the House will be aware of the importance of libraries. I remember that, during the last Government, many libraries were the subject of local authority reductions of support. Many libraries are now working much more effectively, however, often through charitable and voluntary contributions. The library sector has made considerable progress in recent years. I cannot promise time for a debate, but I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words will have been heard.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The level of business rates is a cause of great concern for many small businesses. Of particular concern is the delay in assessing appeals to the Valuation Office Agency. May we please have a debate in Government time on the important question of business rates and the way in which the VOA is operating?

[Mr Lansley]

I fear that I cannot immediately offer time for a debate of that kind, but I will of course raise the issue with my hon. Friends. I do not have with me the details of the Valuation Office Agency’s performance in relation to its targets, but I will explore that too, and ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives details of the progress it is making.

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

Please may we have a debate about women in the workplace, and about what support is being provided to help more women to work? Such a debate would highlight the fact that more women than men are starting apprenticeships, that more women are starting businesses than ever before, and that more women are in senior positions in business than ever before. However, it would also highlight the fact that there is still a very long way to go before women are equally represented on company boards.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point well, and it is one that the Government completely recognise and support. The coalition Government are now introducing measures that will make a big difference to families and to women wanting to choose whether and when to return to work—in particular, tax free child care support meeting 20% of child care costs for working families with children under 12, starting from the autumn of 2015. That will be worth £1,200 per child and it will benefit 2.5 million families.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or time for a debate on the decision by the Isle of Man Government to introduce for the first time licence fees for United Kingdom and Northern Ireland boats, while retaining fishing grounds for their own Isle of Man fishermen? Northern Ireland fishermen have been fishing there for hundreds of years. This is an important matter, which impacts on me and the businesses of Northern Ireland fishermen. We need a debate in this House on this issue.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree that this is an important matter, of which I confess I was not previously aware, and I will talk to my hon. Friends about it. I cannot promise time for a debate, but given the interest of this particular matter to a number of Members, it might be a suitable topic for an Adjournment debate application.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am very concerned about the scandal surrounding Connaught Asset Management and the impact it is having on a number of my constituents. I am particularly concerned about the reluctance of the Financial Conduct Authority to take specific and appropriate responsibility for regulating the fund operator and investigating irregularities surrounding Tiuta plc. May we have a statement on this matter, particularly concerning how the FCA operates in dealing with these sorts of scandals?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a point on behalf of his constituents. There are many issues in respect of which we want to make sure that we have the right procedures in place to deal with misconduct. In this particular instance, I will, if I may, take advice from my hon. Friends and provide a response. There are a number of routes by which directors responsible for misconduct can be tackled through the companies legislation or, indeed, insolvency practitioners through their professional bodies. I will look at the issue in greater detail and ensure that we respond to my hon. Friend.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the issue of modern-day slavery, which is mentioned in early-day motions 40 and 54.

[That this House sends its condolences to the families of the more than 600 people killed and to the many more injured in the collapse of the garment factory near Dhaka, Bangladesh; notes that this factory supplies clothes to some of the big name companies on Britain’s high streets; further notes that the factory managers and owners are alleged to have ignored signs of cracking in the building reported days before the collapse in a building that had had five more storeys added than it should have; further notes that factories in developing countries like Bangladesh are under enormous pressure to minimise costs from the western multinational companies buying from them; believes that western multinationals buying from developing countries have a responsibility to ensure that the factories producing these goods provide a safe environment for their workers to work in and for workers’ rights to be fully recognised and respected; further believes that the western multinationals that bought clothes from this factory should provide compensation to the bereaved families and the injured survivors; calls on the Government to work with the Bangladeshi government to secure safe working conditions for Bangladeshi workers supplying British markets; and further calls on the Government to enact laws that will provide for sanctions if western multinationals selling goods in this country fail to fulfil their responsibilities to ensure safe and decent working conditions for those working in their supply chain.]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is as shocked as I am to see the death toll in the New Wave Style factory near Dhaka, which now stands at more than 1,200. This means that the garments sold by Monsoon, Gap, Bonmarché, Primark, Walmart, Matalan and Kik are contaminated by modern-day slavery. May I ask that the promised regulation on narrative reporting of quoted companies be brought by the Business Secretary to the Floor of the House for debate, so that we can extend it to ensure that the “human rights reporting” that is talked about will include the eradication of modern-day slavery from company supply chains?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that issue. As mentioned at business questions previously, I thought it very important to have the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which drew the attention of Members to the issue in this country. We also need to be aware, however, of the extent of the impact of corruption on other countries. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) takes the issue very seriously. I will raise the matter of company reporting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as the hon. Gentleman requested, and try to secure a reply for him.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a debate on job provision and particularly the role that job clubs can play in helping people to find work? We have three job clubs in Tamworth, and I have no doubt that they have played their part in helping people find work and reducing local unemployment—down by 314 over the last 12 months to the benefit of local families and households.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I am glad that he and other Members have been actively involved in job clubs in their constituencies, helping people to find work. That is tremendously important. There are more vacancies in the economy, and we want to match people to jobs as best we can. As my hon. Friend knows, it is also important for this Government to support job creation. Since the election, we have seen an increase of one and a quarter million in the number of private sector jobs. We knew when we came to office that we could not sustain the number of public sector jobs, which has been reduced. Happily, though, the private sector jobs are increasing at a rate several times greater than the loss of jobs in the public sector.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Tomorrow, the Furness poverty commission will produce its report on the hidden levels of deprivation in my constituency. I am sure that the whole House will share my gratitude to the commissioners for their work and my shock at the grinding hardship that they have catalogued. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should find time to debate the important recommendations of this report and those of other local poverty commissions set up by concerned Members and citizens up and down the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I have not had an opportunity to read the report, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are keen to assist people. We were discussing job creation a moment ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the best route out of poverty is finding work, and we need to enable people to do that. The number of workless households has fallen, but people who are in need and people who are unable to work require support. If the hon. Gentleman is able to raise these issues with my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions on Monday, when they will be responding to questions, they will, I know, be anxious to do all that they can to help.

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

May we have a statement or a debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan, following the election of a new Government in Pakistan whose policy on Afghanistan will be crucial to security in the region?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I think my hon. Friend will be aware that we have committed ourselves to providing, and continue to provide, a quarterly statement to Parliament about issues involving Afghanistan. The political situation in Pakistan is, of course, of instrumental importance to the securing of the political future in that part of the world, and, as my hon. Friend has said, the elections on 11 May were important in that regard. As I said a moment ago to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), the democratic transfer of power from one civilian Government to another after a full term is a milestone, and we should recognise it as such.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Benjamin Disraeli said:

“A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy.”

I do not know that I would go quite that far, but one element of the way in which we do our business here that is an organised hypocrisy is the private Member’s Bill process. We waste vast quantities of time, and we pretend that we are advancing a legislative process, but we are not. I have been saying this for a couple of years, and I suspect that quite a few Conservative Members may now want changes to be made to the private Member’s Bill process so that it becomes a bit more user-friendly—let us put it that way. Will the Leader of the House promote measures to ensure that the process is no longer an organised hypocrisy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description. During the Session that has just ended, 10 private Members’ Bills secured Royal Assent.

[Chris Bryant]

None of them were private Members’ Bills. They were Government handouts.

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The Members concerned chose those Bills. [Interruption.] The first Bill on the list was the one that became the Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Act 2013. In no sense was that a handout. It had been promoted previously by Members, and was taken up by a Member in the ballot last year.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is scope for improvements in the procedures. The Procedure Committee is discussing that, and I have given evidence to it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has done so as well, but in any event I look forward to hearing what the Committee has to say.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Seventy years ago this very evening, 133 airmen embarked on the daring “dambusters” raid from RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), my namesake and good friend, will be attending a sunset ceremony in his constituency this evening to pay tribute to those airmen. May we have a debate in the House so that we can pay tribute to the 53 airmen who were killed on that raid on the night of 16 May 1943, and to the 55,573 airmen from Bomber Command who died during the second world war?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend says, and as our hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) agrees, we have an opportunity to recognise once again the ingenuity that lay behind the bouncing bomb, and the immense bravery and flying skills demonstrated in that raid by 617 squadron under the leadership of Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC; and, in particular, an opportunity to recognise all those in Bomber Command. As we reach the 70th anniversary, it is good to know that, although those events are taking place in Lincolnshire, people throughout the country may have an opportunity to visit the splendid memorial to Bomber Command that was unveiled in London last year.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, there has been palpable excitement today about the private Member’s Bill draw. Would it not be good modernisation to make that part of the business of the House, and have an FA cup-style draw with a bag of balls at the Table of the House in each Session? I accept that football is different, however, in that football clubs are all looking for a good draw to get into Europe, unlike the Leader of the House’s little Englander party, which wants a good draw in order to get out of Europe.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot pre-empt what subjects the Members selected in that ballot might choose to bring forward in their private Member’s Bill, but if they were to bring forward a Bill the purpose of which was to give the people of this country a decision over our future in relation to Europe, I would be in favour of that. It is not a vote to get out of Europe; it is a vote to decide our future in Europe. We in the Conservative party are in favour of that. What is the view of Opposition Members? Do they deny the people of this country the opportunity to take a decision? I think they may have to make a decision on that themselves.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Last Friday Pendle residents John and Penny Clough were at Buckingham palace to receive the MBE that Penny Clough has been awarded in recognition of the successful Justice for Jane campaign named after their murdered daughter. Their campaign to allow a right of appeal on judge-made bail decisions was the focus of my successful Bail (Amendment) Bill in 2011, which was adopted by the Government as section 90 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Given the success of the Cloughs’ campaign and the news from the Crown Prosecution Service that the new law is being used to help victims, may we have a debate on what more the Government can do to support the victims of rape and domestic violence?

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased my hon. Friend has been able to bring to the House that recognition of his constituents Mr and Mrs Clough, not least because I know how difficult it must be for people who have suffered such a tragic and terrible loss then to use that as a means to try to ensure others do not suffer as they have suffered. It is a difficult thing to do, and it is right that we pay tribute to them for doing it.

In the context of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who has now left us—was saying, my hon. Friend demonstrates how the private Member’s Bill can have considerable benefits, not just because Bills achieve Royal Assent, but because they create the agenda for legislation, which in his case the Government followed up. May I also just say that the Government have now ring-fenced £40 million to fund support services in relation to domestic violence and sexual violence, including national helplines and rape support centres, but we are constantly looking for new ways to protect victims?

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although there have been over 1,000 measles infections in Swansea since November, the number of live cases is in the dozens, not hundreds, because measles only lasts for three weeks. May we have an urgent debate about measles, not only on the case for universal immunisation, but to make the case that places such as Swansea are still open for business now—and for the centenary in 2014 of Dylan Thomas, the second-most translated poet of all time?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not know when we might have an opportunity to hold such a debate, but I think it is important for us to have a debate about vaccination. Some new vaccination programmes have recently been announced, which I think will make substantial progress in the prevention of disease. We have restored MMR vaccine uptake to its highest level, but, unfortunately, there is a reservoir of people who were not vaccinated in earlier years, and in many places across the country we are rightly now having to tackle that.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

May we have a debate on community football clubs? That would allow me to highlight the success of Chester football club, which since being resurrected as a community-owned club in 2010 has won three successive league titles, regularly attracts over 3,000 fans to home games, has recently been promoted to the Blue Square premier league, and we hope will march on into the Football League next year.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad my hon. Friend has asked that question, as it gives us an opportunity to celebrate the success of Chester FC and all the other supporter-owned or part supporter-owned clubs, such as Portsmouth, Brentford and Exeter City. That shows the loyalty and stability that can be brought to clubs by that happening. In particular, however, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Chester once again.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the £2.6 million owed in wages to armed forces personnel that was not paid in April 2013, following the 1.5% agreed pay increase, a decision arrived at by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which was applied only from 1 May 2013? That means that the pay increase applies for only 11 months rather than 12—something I have never heard of in the private sector or the public sector. May we have a ministerial statement and a reversal of that decision, to make sure that our armed forces are paid what they are owed?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will, first, talk to my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence and establish what the position is. Of course, I will then ensure that the hon. Gentleman has a reply and that, if appropriate, any statement is given to the House.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 103?

[That this House notes that the Ministry of Justice fully understands the need for tough sentences regarding those who own dangerous dogs; further notes however that the owner of a dog which inflicted a 5 cm flesh wound and a severed artery on a constituent of the hon. Member for Harlow has escaped unpunished whilst the dog’s walker was handed a £250 compensation order; and asks the Secretary of State for Justice if he will consider reviewing the legislation on dog attacks in public areas to help put an end to such sentencing.]

The early-day motion deals with a dangerous dog attack on my 14-year-old constituent Brandon Elston. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that sentences such as a £250 compensation order for the attack are unacceptable? May we have an urgent statement to review the sentencing for dangerous dog attacks? Will he write to the Justice Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand why my hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to him and, no doubt, to his constituents. There will be an opportunity in this House to raise issues relating to dangerous dogs, not least in the Second Reading debate on the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill on Monday 10 June, because that legislation includes further measures relating to the subject. Of course I will raise the issue of sentencing with the Justice Secretary, but my hon. Friend will understand that Ministers should not seek to allow our own views to intrude on the sentencing decisions being made by courts under the guidelines.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Before the G8 summit, may we have a debate on aggressive tax avoidance by multinational companies? Does the Leader of the House share the public’s outrage at this morning’s news that on UK sales last year of £4.2 billion Amazon paid tax of just £3.2 million—almost as much as the company received from Government grants?

[Mr Lansley]

The opportunities for debate are there, including in respect of the Finance Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know. It is this Government who are introducing the general anti-avoidance measures—those were not introduced by the previous Labour Government. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House says that they are not a panacea, and she is right, because this requires enforcement. That is why the Treasury has devoted additional resources specifically to ensuring enforcement against tax evasion, abuses and anti-avoidance schemes that trespass on the tax system.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

May I apologise for not being present at the start of business questions? Unfortunately, I was taking a call on the matter I am about to raise. The Kirkby campus of Knowsley community college in my constituency is earmarked by the college for closure, which I am wholly opposed to. Will the Leader of the House urge the relevant Ministers to enter into talks with Knowsley council, the community college and me to try to secure a future for the Kirkby campus?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I had no prior knowledge of the situation he describes, but, recognising his concern, I will of course raise it with my colleagues at the Department for Education, and I hope that they will be in touch with him soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 13 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on health and social care.

Tuesday 14 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on the cost of living.

Wednesday 15 May—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on economic growth.

Thursday 16 May—General debate on mental health. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 May will include:

Monday 20 May—Remaining stages of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 21 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Day 2), followed by motion to approve a European document relating to Syria.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 May will be:

Thursday 16 May—Debate on the seventh report of the Education Select Committee on careers guidance for young people, followed by debate on the seventh report of the Science and Technology Committee on educating tomorrow’s engineers.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. The next time the Government cannot find their Education Minister and have to bring business questions forward, I wonder whether they might like to give us a little more notice—I am still catching my breath. I also thank him for advance sight of the written ministerial statement he tabled today confirming the Bills announced yesterday. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be as concerned as I am that while he provided Members with one page of information, the Downing street spin machine provided the press with 93 pages of detail on the same Bills. Will he confirm that he will arrange for a copy of that briefing to be placed in the House of Commons Library immediately and that in future he will ensure that Members of this House are accorded the same courtesies as are accorded to the press?

I welcome to the House the new Labour Member, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell-Buck), the first woman to represent Shields in Parliament. She will be a fighter for her constituents. I also welcome back into the Conservative fold the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). I wonder whether the Leader of the House is taking bets on how long it will take the Chief Whip to wish she was back in the jungle.

I suspect that last week’s local elections had a more profound impact on the Queen’s Speech than the Leader of the House can let on. They were a disaster across the English shires for the Conservatives, as Labour won in many southern marginals and hordes of true blue voters flocked to the UK Independence party. I followed with interest the Conservative implosion in the Leader of the House’s own backyard of Cambridgeshire, where the Conservatives lost control of the council for the first time in more than 15 years. The Conservative leader of the council even managed to lose his seat—and to a Liberal Democrat. I hope that the Leader of the House has congratulated his deputy, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), on that success for the Liberal Democrats on his home turf. It is hard to imagine, but the Leader of the House did better in the elections than the Prime Minister, who managed to lose Witney to Labour and see the Conservative candidate beaten into third place by UKIP.

The signs are that the panic is setting in. Lord Lawson is calling for an exit from Europe—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He has some support on the Government Back Benches, I hear. Lord Tebbit is reported as saying that UKIP’s policies are now closer to the traditional Conservative agenda, and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is calling for a big, open and comprehensive coalition with Farage. This is a failing Conservative party that cannot even hold on to the Tory shires and whose Members are starting to behave like headless chickens. They are so bad at listening to their own members that this week one of them resorted to taking out a full page advertisement in The Times to tell them how out of touch they are. The irony is that he probably paid for it with his millionaire’s tax cut.

Many of us were shocked by the omission from the Gracious Speech of the promised legislation to ensure plain packaging for cigarettes. The public health Minister, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), publicly supported the proposal, and when the Leader of the House was Secretary of State for Health he said:

“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets.”

Does he stand by that view? Why have the measures on minimum alcohol pricing been dropped, too? After this week’s revelations that the Prime Minister’s election guru, Lynton Crosby, has business links to big tobacco and the drinks industry, can the Leader of the House assure us that no inside lobbying has taken place at No. 10? Or is that why the Government’s proposal to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists has also mysteriously disappeared?

Yesterday’s Queen’s Speech showed that the Government may have legislated for fixed five-year Parliaments but that they have run out of ideas after just three. Instead of new ideas to get our economy growing again, all we get is a thin, cobbled-together legislative programme that is completely lacking in ambition. Our last Session saw parliamentary time unfilled, badly drafted, badly managed Bills, and a U-turn, on average, once every seven sitting days. Yesterday’s Queen’s Speech will give no one confidence that in the coming year we will not see more of the same.

This was the Government’s third Queen’s Speech, and all we have had is three years of failure, with low growth, falling living standards, and rising borrowing. The Government had nothing to say on tackling the crisis in youth unemployment. They had nothing to back small businesses, nothing to boost housing, nothing on rail fares and nothing on growth. This is a tired Government, out of ideas and out of touch. Even Sir Alex Ferguson could not turn this lot into a winning team.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response. I am glad that she has sufficient puff, even though the shadow Queen’s Speech she published during the recess seemed to have less steam in it than a decent kettle.

I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell-Buck). Although this is a matter for the Chief Whip, I also welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). In this case, however, it is probably more appropriate to say, “Welcome back to the jungle.”

The shadow Leader of the House should not trespass on to trying to interpret last Thursday’s local election results, especially those in South Cambridgeshire. I know about mid-terms; I ran the Conservative party’s European and parliamentary election campaign in 1999, two years before the 2001 general election, when we trounced everybody in sight. Labour Members might like to remember that simple fact. They might also like to remember the simple fact that their party, with their leader, secured less impressive local election results last Thursday than Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock did in mid-term. On the day before the local elections there were six Conservative county councillors in South Cambridgeshire; after the elections there were nine, partly because a sitting UKIP councillor in one division lost his seat to a Conservative. I would like the hon. Lady to get her facts right before she ventures into my constituency.

The hon. Lady asked about standardised packaging. I initiated the consultation on standardised packaging, and I did so, as I said at the time, with an open mind. As my right hon. Friends have made clear, no decision has been made in response to the consultation on that. I think that the hon. Lady will recall that the nature of the Queen’s Speech is to put forward proposals for legislation where the Government have decided what their policy is, not to venture into legislation where no policy decision has taken place. It is completely false to imagine that there was ever a question of including reference to standardised packaging in the Queen’s Speech; there never was, and it would not have been appropriate to do so.

As I said, I have looked at the hon. Lady’s alternative Queen’s Speech. In contrast with ours, there seem to be just six Bills, one of which is a finance Bill. It refers to a consumer’s Bill. There is a draft consumer rights Bill in our proposals. She has a proposal for a jobs Bill. I do not know quite what that means, because I have never yet found out how Labour Members can propose policies that would destroy jobs while guaranteeing people jobs. Where are these jobs supposed to come from? Jobs come from wealth-creating businesses, and that is what this coalition Government have been able to achieve in the past year, with some 500,000 additional jobs. Since the election, 1.2 million extra jobs have been created in the private sector. That is what makes the real difference.

The hon. Lady’s shadow Queen’s Speech refers to a banking Bill. A banking reform Bill is being carried over from the previous Session. She talks about a housing Bill, but as far as I can see her proposals would not get any houses built; we will do that through the Help to Buy scheme and other schemes.

The Labour party’s shadow Queen’s Speech also refers to an immigration Bill. Such a Bill is the centrepiece of our legislative programme, but the Labour party’s version would not impact on net migration numbers at all. It might be reasonable to make sure that migrant workers are not abused, but that is not the issue; the issue is to ensure that we encourage those people who can contribute to this economy, while also ensuring that we are not subject to abuse by those who enter and do not make such a contribution. That is what our immigration Bill will do.

On informing the House on the content of Bills, I remind the hon. Lady that today’s fresh new Order Paper notes that, in addition to the carry-over Bills from the previous Session, the Pensions Bill, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill and the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be presented in this House today, while the Care Bill, the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, the Mesothelioma Bill, the Local Audit and Accountability Bill and the Intellectual Property Bill will be presented in another place. The House therefore has a full programme, commencing today.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government’s provisions to enable assets of community value to be listed have already proved useful in saving valued community services such as village shops and public houses from closure. He may, however, share my concern that some of the major public house operators—known as pubcos—are seeking to circumvent the proposals by selling pubs through private contracts with commercial developers without the sale ever being advertised and, therefore, without the community having any notice of what is happening until the pub closes overnight and an application to demolish the premises, often on specious grounds of security costs, is made the next day. This has happened in my constituency, where Enterprise Inns surreptitiously sold the Porcupine public house to Lidl. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this subject?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If, when the hon. Gentleman was practising at the Bar, he was paid by the word, I think he now owes us all a drink.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is, of course, an asset of considerable value in this House and he played a significant part, through the Localism Act 2011, in securing the much-valued measures. I agree with him. Parishes in my own constituency have seen the value of the assets of community value provisions, which should not be circumvented. I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government hears what my hon. Friend has said, and he might be able to take action.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the urgent issue of the right to buy and the Government’s broken promise that there would be one-for-one, like-for-like replacements? According to the Department for Communities and Local Government website, for every nine houses sold only one is replaced. This amounts to a broken promise to those people who desperately need affordable housing but who are not getting it.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should first acknowledge that under Labour the number of new social houses being built dropped to its lowest ever level. There is a time lag: the right to buy is of significant value to tenants at the point when they become homeowners, but it also derives a benefit to the housing revenue account, which will enable additional properties to be built in due course.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am sure that the House agrees that we must protect our national assets, one of which is fishing quota. Currently, small fishermen are trying to wrestle back—on behalf of the Government in many ways and on behalf of citizens—the fishing quota that has been “appropriated” by other quarters and interests. May we have a debate on this issue as soon as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising what is an important issue, not least in her own constituency. I will, of course, talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ensure that they take note of what she says. There may be an opportunity for her to raise the issue and for them to respond at the forthcoming DEFRA Question Time.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are a month into the implementation of the bedroom tax and the benefit cap is about to be rolled out across London. Does the Leader of the House not think that it would be good to have a debate between Members and Ministers from the Departments for Communities and Local Government and for Work and Pensions, because there is clearly a gap? Constituents of mine are being issued with letters from housing associations threatening them with eviction as a result of these measures.

[Mr Lansley]

I remind the House and Opposition Members in particular that, as Mr Speaker outlined yesterday, the selection of subjects for the Queen’s Speech debate was made by the Opposition. They could have chosen to debate the Government’s welfare reforms, but they did not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will respond to the debate tomorrow. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise the matter then, we will be glad to take part in the debate and to ask why the Labour party, after 13 years of talking about welfare reform that it never delivered, has turned itself into a party that is opposed to the reform of welfare.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate or statement on business rates? As he will know, retailers and small retailers in particular have faced incredibly tough trading conditions since 2008, and yet business rates have risen enormously. Businesses across my constituency and particularly those in places such as Saltaire are struggling as a result of the increase in business rates. Given that such businesses are the backbone of our local communities and local economies, the Government should surely do more to alleviate the cost of business rates.

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government about that matter. My hon. Friend will note that there is an opportunity in the Queen’s Speech debate to discuss such issues. If memory serves, the debate on Tuesday is about the cost of living. Somebody will tell me if I am wrong about that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will respond to the debate. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but due to the growth incentive, which is part of the drive towards the devolution of responsibilities, local authorities now have greater flexibility to offer business rate discounts in particular circumstances.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I draw the House’s attention to early-day motion 36, which stands in my name and the names of other Members?

[That this House deplores the Government’s intention to award legal aid franchises to a limited number of contractors, effectively abolishing a client’s right to choose their legal representation; notes that this will reduce the quality of legal representation to the lowest standard possible; further notes the fact that firms currently compete on quality of service and will henceforth be required to compete on the basis of price; regrets the damning effect which this further reform of legal aid is likely to have on high street solicitors firms who are likely to either close or abandon legal aid cases; further notes that this will have a very detrimental effect on the provision of services through the medium of the Welsh language; further notes that this will create vast advice deserts in many rural areas; further regrets the departure from the principle of equality of arms before the law and the rights of all citizens to access to justice; and calls on the Government to abandon this ill-thought through reform immediately.]

The proposals for competitive price tendering of legal aid services are potentially devastating for rural areas and will undoubtedly create advice deserts, threaten the independence of the Bar and undermine Welsh language provision. To cap it all, the Government, when they conclude their discussions, will try to push the proposals through in secondary legislation. We should have a debate on the Floor of the House. This is a potentially devastating move and it should be reconsidered. It is an example of dogma taking precedence over common sense.

[Mr Lansley]

I have, of course, looked at the early-day motion. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Parliament decided what the regime for statutory instruments should be under that legislation. Although I will convey to my hon. Friends the points that he makes, he should recognise that we had a very generous legal aid system, the cost of which far exceeded that in pretty much every other jurisdiction. To that extent, the coalition Government had to take some difficult decisions.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents in Kettering want ours to be a national health service, not an international health service. They are very keen on the Government’s proposals to stop foreign national health tourists abusing our free health care without contributing to our health system. In which Bill will those proposals be contained? Will the Leader of the House make time available for that Bill at the earliest opportunity? If it is a big Bill with lots of provisions, will he give thought to creating a stand-alone Bill so that these measures can be fast-tracked through Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that many people across the country would agree with him.

Notwithstanding what I read in the newspapers this morning, in my experience it is often general practitioners who say that the situation is absurd. I recall a GP speaking to me—forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I tell a little story—about the American and Japanese students who registered at her practice. After a while, they would go to see her when they were leaving and say, “Shall I talk to the receptionist about payment?” She had to say, “There is no payment.” They looked at her as if we were mad because at home they would have paid and they had insurance and were willing to pay. However, because of the structure of the legislation, the national health service said, “You are ordinarily resident here so it is free. End of story.” That is absurd. The students did not expect it and we should not have got into that position. We need to deal with that. The issue is not always abuse. This is a system that should be tightened up.

I anticipate that the measures to which my hon. Friend refers will be part of an immigration Bill later in the Session.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is humiliating for the Leader of the House to have to defend such a light legislative programme and a coalition Government who have all but run out of road on which they can agree to travel together. He will know that for more than a year I have highlighted a problem for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which does not have the same powers as other professional regulators to review and revise its disciplinary decisions. Given that there is so little legislation before the House this year, will he help find time for a small but important legal change to deal with that problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I was trying to examine to what extent legislation was brought forward when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government, although there is nothing intrinsically good about the number of Bills being brought forward. Fifteen Bills were mentioned in the Gracious Speech yesterday, the same number as in 2012. That is, of course, fewer Bills than in 2010, which was a two-year Session, but more than in 2008 or 2007 and the latter part of the Government of which he was a member.

I would say that the Bills being presented are incomparably more substantial, bold and radical. The right hon. Gentleman should look at what is being presented today on the rehabilitation of offenders—my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice will say more about that in a statement later; at the pensions Bill and what it will mean for removing the absurd and perverse anomaly whereby people were incentivised not to save, and not given reassurance that the state pension would stand behind them so that their savings could add to that without detracting from it; and at the care Bill. I feel proud that we are addressing the reform of social care—something that signally failed under the previous Labour Government —and providing important protections for the carers of those in need. It is a bold and ambitious Bill from a coalition Government who, notwithstanding the difficult decisions we have had to make, have themselves been bold, ambitious and radical.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Portsmouth News and the Solent local enterprise partnership, which have worked together to introduce a successful “bridging the gap” scheme and used a £2.1 million regional growth fund bid to help generate local growth and boost local business. May we have a debate in the House to celebrate such successful, innovative business growth schemes, and share other innovative ideas for promoting local growth?

[Mr Lansley]

I do indeed join my hon. Friend in welcoming the “bridging the gap” scheme and those who have supported it in her constituency and around Portsmouth and the Solent. It shows how, by working closely with local authorities and businesses, local enterprise partnerships are able to deliver schemes that make sense locally, not least because they are rooted in their local communities and not part of a bureaucracy, which regional development agencies used to be. My hon. Friend draws on a good example of that.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

There was nothing in the Budget or the Queen’s Speech about flood insurance. We are in the final weeks of the statement of principles and my constituents are worried about getting flood insurance come July. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on exactly what is happening and why getting a coherent policy from July for my constituents is such a shambles?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know—I have said this in the House, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that we are in negotiations with the Association of British Insurers. She will have noted in the Queen’s Speech the intention to introduce legislation relating to the water industry. The Government are clear that we will take the necessary legislative provisions in this Session not only to support reform of the water industry, but to give it greater resilience, promote competition and provide the framework for flood insurance in the future.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

The Government are to be congratulated on a number of the large infrastructure projects that they are proposing, but a number of choke points on the road transport network, including one on the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, stop the flow of traffic. The choke points cost time and, as we know, time is money. There are a number of choke points throughout the country. If we want to improve the flow of traffic, it would be worth the Government’s time to listen to Members of the House on where those choke points are. Perhaps the Transport Minister can come to the House to make a statement on how he will address them.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend reminds me that debates in the House are a good opportunity for Members to make those points, not least through Adjournment debates. I recall that my first Adjournment debate in the House in 1997 related to the rebuilding of the A14, which, as he and I know because it is in our region, is as yet unfinished. I hope the coalition Government will finally make that happen, but I know perfectly well the road connection to which he refers. I have no doubt that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), understands the problem very well, even if decisions on it might be led more locally through the local enterprise partnership.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Last month, Scottish Coal went into liquidation; this week, it looks very much as if UK Coal will be wound up by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That could close Kellingley and Thornley collieries, and six other open-cast mines, at the cost of 2,000-plus jobs. May we have an urgent debate on the future of the British coal mining industry to ensure that the Government’s promises to protect the people at Daw Mill colliery are kept and that the future of the remaining collieries in the UK is secure?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not in a position to speculate on the position of limited companies, but he will know that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), the previous Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change, and the current Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), have both given time and energy to working on the issues at Daw Mill colliery and across the UK coal industry. The hon. Gentleman and other Members on both sides of the House who have an interest might consider whether they want to take the matter forward with the Backbench Business Committee in due course—there would be interest on both sides of the House.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituent, Douglas Mann, is a hard-working carer. Like 40,000 other carers, he is concerned that the increase in the minimum wage will take him 96p over the threshold for carer’s allowance, which will make him £60 a week worse off. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement so we can ensure that we maintain the vital principle that people will always be better off in work?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point on behalf of his constituent. He will be aware that the Government’s increase of the minimum wage will tip some carers over the earnings limit for carer’s allowance. Therefore, the Government are in the process of considering whether an increase in the earnings threshold is warranted and affordable. However, it should be kept in mind—my hon. Friend will know this and be advising his constituent of it—that the earnings limit for carer’s allowance is net of tax, national insurance contributions and certain other allowable expenses, which means that carers can earn significantly more than £100 a week and still get the carer’s allowance.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the impact of cuts to youth services such as those being carried out by Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire council in the Scunthorpe area on young people and their prospects?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a statement on that, which is a matter of his local authority making decisions. However, he will find that I have announced a debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 16 May on the Education Committee report on careers guidance for young people, which is relevant to his point. He might wish to contribute to that debate.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In the Leader of the House’s opening comments, he mentioned a forthcoming debate on mental health. He will be aware that one of the biggest mental health issues is the associated social stigma. Will he ensure that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he specifically addresses social stigma, so that hon. Members can ensure that many more people who suffer from mental health problems come forward for treatment rather than shy away?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will, of course, recall the important debate on mental health some 18 months ago. I hope that next Thursday’s debate will follow up on that and embrace other mental health issues. He is right to say that social stigma has been addressed previously, and we need to continue to tackle it. He will recall that Cambridgeshire was a pilot area in the campaign against social stigma associated with mental health diagnoses. That was very important and I hope the debate will afford the opportunity to which he refers.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the economy of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the peace dividend, which was promised by Downing street some years ago to underpin devolution arrangements but as yet has not been realised?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady may wish to take the opportunity to raise this issue in next Wednesday’s debate on economic growth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and others are absolutely committed to supporting Northern Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland in promoting economic growth and, in particular, rebalancing the economy further, so that Northern Ireland can participate in the private sector employment and wealth creation that, happily, has characterised the success of the coalition Government.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Earlier this year, I had the privilege of opening a new manufacturing plant facility at Vent-Axia in my constituency. May we have a debate on the importance of manufacturing in the UK, and, as with this case, on bringing jobs back from China and other countries to the British work force?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which will be appropriate to raise in tomorrow’s debate on jobs and business and in Wednesday’s debate on economic growth. I hope that when the Opposition make their case they will start by acknowledging their failure in allowing the economy to become increasingly unbalanced under their tenure, and recognise the loss of so many manufacturing jobs when they were in government and the necessity now of ensuring that we support manufacturing, as the Government are doing.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s city of culture 2017 initiative? I am sure that the Leader of the House is backing Leicester’s bid. A debate would allow Members on both sides of the House to express their support for Leicester’s overwhelming claim.

[Mr Lansley]

As Leader of the House, it is probably best that I do not back anybody’s claim. I cannot promise a debate, but I think the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue and I hope there will be an opportunity to hear more about it. It would make a good occasion if Members were able to come and present the competing, positive claims of many cities across the country.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I wonder whether we could have a debate on the future of our town centres, which would enable us to highlight the fact that there is some good news, such as the proposal announced today of a £20 million extension to Rugby’s Clock Towers shopping centre. That will secure our town centre and provide an extra 132,000 square feet, a new department store, food and drink outlets and a nine-screen cinema.

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend says about the development of Rugby town centre. He knows that the coalition Government provide considerable support through high-street initiatives. At the heart of that is supporting wealth creation and giving local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, through the growth incentive, the opportunity to reinvest in their town centres.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Community sentences were meant for low-level offences, not serious offences. May we have a debate and a proper explanation from a Minister on why more than 10,000 domestic violence, knife crime and serious assault offences last year resulted only in community resolutions?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech will focus on home affairs, so rather than detain the House in response to his question, I invite him to participate in that debate. I am sure that he would get a very good answer from Home Office Ministers.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the wonderful work that hospices, such as St Peter’s in my constituency, do across our country?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to raise that issue during the health and social care debate on Monday. I know that he is a devoted supporter of the hospice serving his constituency and even skydived on its behalf, which was commendable and courageous—although I think the Whips would encourage him to be very careful. I think that hospices do a wonderful job. From my many visits to hospices, I am familiar with what they do. During the course of this Parliament, the coalition Government will be putting in place per-patient funding schemes to enable hospices to provide more holistic services to patients so that the NHS can support them to a more appropriate degree.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

There was much hype yesterday over the Government’s immigration Bill. Will the Leader of House make it clear when the Bill will be published and, in advance of that, how the check scheme for private landlords will work and be enforced?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady can of course ask about those issues during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the immigration Bill will be published later in the Session.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

During yesterday’s excellent Gracious Speech, reference was made to a Bill to make changes to the electoral arrangements in Wales. Given that changes to electoral arrangements in devolved regions are hugely important right across the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, despite the full legislative programme this Session, adequate time is provided for all Members to make a contribution to the debate about changes to Welsh arrangements?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly refers to the reference in the Queen’s Speech to a draft Wales Bill. I am grateful for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to make it clear that more than half of the 17 Bills referred to in my written ministerial statement this morning are the subject, either in whole or in part, of pre-legislative scrutiny. That will ensure, I hope, that the issue that he quite properly raises—about the important debate on electoral and constitutional legislation—will be fully scrutinised this Session before the Bill is introduced.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about the statement of principles for flood insurance, the current set of principles expires next month, so could we have a statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as soon as possible about the principles that will be renewed? This matters to flood-prone constituencies such as mine.

[Mr Lansley]

I, along with Members across the House and the Government, share my hon. Friend’s sense of urgency about ensuring that the flood insurance arrangements are in place in the long term. That was exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I reiterate that we took an important step forward yesterday in setting out in the Queen’s Speech our intention to introduce legislation on the water industry, which I hope not least will give a spur to the Association of British Insurers, together with the Government, to finalise the arrangements.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for either the Justice Secretary or a Ministry of Justice Minister to make a statement about the arrangements for the re-interment of Richard III? As he will know—the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) will know this too—the university of Leicester was given a licence by the MOJ to make arrangements for the re-interment of the remains of Richard III by next autumn, but the Plantagenet Alliance—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman wants a statement on the matter. We are deeply obliged to him.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. He, like other Members, will recall the debate in Westminster Hall on his issue, during which Ministers set out, very fairly, the legal position under the licence issued by the MOJ. I do not think that there is anything further to add.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I and many of my constituents are supporters of Coventry City football club—which some people may think an encumbrance, although we think it is a wonderful thing. The supporters of the club are dismayed at the suggestion by its owners that they might want to relocate it from the city of Coventry to another town. Could we therefore have a debate on the community value of football clubs and football governance in this country?

[Mr Lansley]

Are we talking about the Ricoh stadium?

[Mr Jones]

indicated assent.

[Mr Lansley]

I rather admire the Ricoh stadium—I went there to see one of the Olympic events that it hosted at the start of the games. It is a fine stadium and I was impressed by the support that the community in Coventry gave to that event. If I may, I will not trespass on local decisions about the location of the stadium for the future, other than to say that I know that football clubs rightly attract enormous loyalty, which is something that should be taken into account.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister next week regarding the emblems on ballot papers? I understand that the law has been changed, so that two emblems—for instance, Labour and Co-operative—can be put on the ballot paper next to a candidate. Perhaps it was also thought that there might be Conservative and Liberal candidates, or was the Deputy Prime Minister being far-sighted, having realised that there would be Conservative and UKIP candidates at the next election?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer my hon. Friend the immediate prospect of a statement, not least because the issue was resolved and Parliament legislated for it. He is quite right: I recall that the motivation rested more with Labour and Co-op candidates than with any of the more speculative suggestions that he made in his question. However, in response to his request, I fear that I cannot offer a statement.

[Harriett Baldwin]

rose—

Government's Legislative Programme 2013-14

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Written Statements

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Following yesterday’s state opening of Parliament, and for the convenience of the House, I am listing below the 17 Bills which were announced yesterday:

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Care Bill

Defence Reform Bill

Deregulation Bill

High Speed Two Bill (Hybrid Bill)

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Immigration Bill

Intellectual Property Bill

Local Audit and Accountability Bill

Mesothelioma Bill

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Pensions Bill

Offender Rehabilitation Bill

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Water Bill

Primary legislation will also be taken forward in accordance with the European Union Act 2011 to seek Parliament’s approval for measures proposed by the European Union.

Nine of these Bills, or parts of them, will have had pre-legislative scrutiny prior to introduction.

The following Bills will be published in draft:

Consumer Rights Bill

Deregulation Bill

National Insurance Contributions Bill

A draft Bill concerning National Assembly For Wales

A draft Bill concerning changes to the Riot Damages Act 1886

Further measures are expected to be published in draft later in the Session.

The Government also intend to bring forward a Law Commission Bill on inheritance and trustees’ powers and also a consolidation Bill on co-operatives.

Detailed information about each of these Bills can be accessed from the No. 10 website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House make some comments today about future business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With the progress of business now certain, a formal announcement was made yesterday evening in the other place on the arrangements for Prorogation. It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicated that I expect royal commissioners to attend the other place this afternoon to signify Royal Assent to several Bills and to prorogue Parliament until Wednesday 8 May.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that there will be a Queen’s Speech on 8 May. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all staff of the House for their support during this Session. We prorogue today, giving Members the opportunity to get some much-needed exercise campaigning in the local elections next week. I just hope that the Leader of the House will not be in a Conservative battle bus driven by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), because she told the House this week that Sunderland was near Bolton.

In the last few days of this Session, the Government have had to throw a series of cherished policies overboard to save their Bills from falling in the Lords. They have caved in on trying to abolish the general equality duty, on caste discrimination, on the pension age of Ministry of Defence police and fire officers, on licensing letting agents and the free market free-for-all on conservatories. In the battle over the Chancellor’s “shares for rights scheme”, they managed to spark two revolts in the Lords by two previous Lib Dem leaders and four former Tory Cabinet Ministers, including a previous Tory Chancellor. Lord Forsyth, the Thatcherite former Scottish Secretary said the scheme was

“ill thought through, confused and muddled”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 597.],

while the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell asked:

“in the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver. Is it now £2,000?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 617.]

The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that the cost of the Chancellor’s folly will be nearly £1 billion, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it could “foster tax avoidance”. The Chancellor’s pet scheme was saved by an eleventh-hour compromise last night, but when will he realise that it is simply wrong to put a price on people’s right to be treated fairly at work?

Reflecting on the current Session, I calculated that up to this morning the Government had U-turned 21 times, an average of once every seven sitting days. The Leader of the House has just announced another U-turn, on the House business committee. I wonder whether we shall see even more in the next Session. That may be a promise that the Government considered for the Queen’s Speech: it is probably the only target that they could actually meet. I hope that the Leader of the House will not mind my borrowing a well-worn phrase as a piece of advice for the Government: “You turn again if you want to”—and the sooner the better.

We now know that of the 10 original members of the Downing street policy unit only three remain, and apparently two of those are actively seeking other work. So great is the exodus that Conservative Back Benchers are complaining that No. 10 resembles the Mary Celeste, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has more advisers than the boss. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to come and make a statement about the Government’s policy on emergency support for sinking ships?

In a desperate attempt to reverse his fortunes, the Prime Minister has just announced that the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) is to be given a job at No. 10. The problem is that the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers think that he has got the wrong brother, and that it is the top job at No.10 that the Johnson dynasty really want. Meanwhile, sources tell us that the latest round of proposed spending cuts has caused such a backlash that Cabinet Ministers are turning on each other in a circular firing squad. They cannot even organise a firing squad properly.

On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics released the latest public sector net borrowing figures. They were a quarter of 1% lower than last year’s—and that is only after the most blatant piece of creative accounting at the Treasury that we have seen for a very long time. We now know that the Government are set to borrow £245 billion more than they planned to borrow in 2010. That is the cost of their economic failure.

The Chancellor’s deficit reduction plan has been so successful that, at the rate he is going, it will take 400 years to balance the books. If we look back 400 years, we see that the gunpowder plot had just failed, the King James Bible was newly published, and the pilgrim fathers were preparing to set sail for north America. Can the Leader of the House promise a debate in the new Session on the abject failure of the Chancellor’s economic plan? Today’s anaemic GDP figures show that we are back to where we were six months ago.

This week the Chancellor told John Humphrys that he had shed a tear while listening to the headlines on the “Today” programme. Can the Leader of the House tell us which headlines he meant? Was it the IMF describing his economic plan as “playing with fire”? Was it the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that we were in a depression? Was it yet another ratings agency stripping us of our triple A status? Or was it the Chancellor’s poll ratings, which are plummeting among his own Back Benchers?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for, in particular, expressing her appreciation for the House service, which I share. At the end of a parliamentary Session, we should express our appreciation especially for those who support us in the carrying on of the Business of the Chamber—the Clerks at the Table, in the Table Office and in the Public Bill Office, those who look after us in the Chamber, and of course the Official Reporters. The list of those on whom we depend is very long, and we are very grateful to them.

I am not in a position to comment on business to be conducted during the next Session, but in the current Session we have completed the passage of a substantial amount of important legislation. Some 27 Bills have been passed, including three that were carried over from the first Session to the second. Important measures were introduced, such as the Justice and Security Bill, the establishment of the National Crime Agency in the Crime and Courts Bill, individual voter registration, the new green investment bank, the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, and of course just this week the Succession to the Crown Bill.

At previous business questions, the shadow Leader of the House has asked about the publication of legislation in draft. In this Session, we published 15 Bills in draft, which is more than in any previous Session, including the two-year Session that preceded this one. To that extent I hope, we have continued a process established in this Parliament by my predecessor of ensuring that the House, the public and stakeholders have the greatest possible opportunity for input and contribution to the passage of legislation.

The shadow Leader of the House raised a number of issues. I know that the Prime Minister was thinking of the right Johnson when he engaged my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in policy making. It is not just about my hon. Friend, but about other Government Members; there is a difference. In the Liberal Democrat party, for their purposes, and in the Conservative party, elected Members of the party democratically take part in the discussion of policy, and contribute directly to policy. Labour policy is directed to Members by the trade unions. We have it from a former general secretary of the Labour party himself, who said of the trade unions that they were

“running rings around him”

—the Leader of the Opposition—

“and soon will control much of the party.”

He says that they control the selection of MEPs. They are the piper who calls the Labour party tune. In the last quarter, Len McCluskey and Unite paid a third of the Labour party’s total income—just that single trade union. Is it any surprise that it wants to go from controlling candidate selection to controlling the policy of the Labour party and who is on the Opposition Front Bench? I am sure the shadow Leader of the House is safe, but some of her colleagues are not. In the next Session, we shall see what the consequence may be in terms of changes on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I shall certainly try, Mr Speaker.

Last Saturday, 30,000 people gathered in Stafford regarding the outcome of the Francis report on the whole Stafford hospital saga; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tragedy. The Prime Minister has given his personal assurance that there will be a debate in due course. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House prepared to make sure that it happens much sooner rather than much later?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that I am very well aware indeed of the situation at Stafford and all the circumstances that led to it. He will recall that the Backbench Business Committee very importantly secured a debate on NHS transparency and accountability. In response to his questions, I have made clear my view that once we have gone beyond the interim report made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, there should be occasions in the future, when the Government make a formal response to the public inquiry held by Robert Francis, for the House to have further opportunity to debate it.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1304?

[That this House expresses its utter condemnation of and disgust with Bernard Rowen of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Limited for his repeated victimisation of a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, whom he has dismissed twice without any valid justification; deplores slanderous statements made by management about this constituent; calls for the immediate reinstatement of this constituent and for his victimisation to cease; further calls instead for the dismissal of Bernard Rowen, who is not fit for this publicly-funded job; further calls on the Charities Commission to investigate the conduct of this organisation; further calls on the operating partners (Community Transport Services Manager, Manchester City Council, Manchester Community Transport and Manchester Ring and Ride) to carry out a similar investigation; and further calls on Transport for Greater Manchester Committee to review its funding of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport in the light of these circumstances.]

It refers to the persecution of one of my constituents by Bernard Rowen, managing director of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd, a publicly funded charitable body. Does the Leader of the House agree that the vilification, as well as the persecution and repeated dismissal, of my constituent by Rowen is outrageous and intolerable? In the remaining time for this Session, or during the recess before the resumption of Parliament on 8 May, will he take all action open to him both to find justice for my constituent and to stop public money being wasted on an organisation whose managing director behaves like a tyrant?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the House fully appreciates his concern for his constituent. I had read the early-day motion to which he refers. Of course, this is a matter for the transport and local authorities in Greater Manchester, and I know that he has been in touch with them about the situation involving Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd. If I may, through discussions with his office, I will ensure that I draw the attention of the relevant authorities to the issue and to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is it possible to extend the duration of Transport Question Times to an hour, because the sessions are heavily oversubscribed? During today’s Transport questions, I was unable to raise BBC Suffolk’s “Don’t Be a Tosser” campaign on reducing road litter, and support for such an issue deserves to be raised on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

These things are considered carefully, but the allocation of time for questions is a matter for the Procedure Committee in the first instance. However, I will by all means look at the point that my hon. Friend raises and the campaign in Suffolk to which she refers.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Many Members constantly have to deal with conflict between neighbours, and one of its causes is the planting of trees that undermine nearby boundary walls, drains and the foundations of neighbouring properties. Insurance companies say that that is a matter for regulation by this House, while the House says that it is a matter for insurance companies. Will the Leader of the House—either later today or in the next Session—consider whether it would be appropriate for the House to legislate on the matter and to provide guidance so that householders no longer face difficulties caused by inappropriate trees in neighbours’ gardens?

[Mr Lansley]

Several of my constituents have experienced such difficulties, and some hon. Members will recall that they were debated in the House when we were considering leylandii legislation. Rather than making a commitment regarding future business, I shall, if I may, seek the views of my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that they may respond to the hon. Lady.

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

In January, a new European directive changed the rules for motorcycle licences. One of my constituents booked her test before the new rules took effect, but it was cancelled due to bad weather. She is now being made to take more expensive and time-consuming tests. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a written statement to be made on how the new EU directive adversely affects those who planned to take their test before 19 January, and is there anything that can be done about this?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand why my hon. Friend’s constituent might have been disappointed by that turn of events. I regret that I have to say that the answer to his question is no, because apparently neither domestic regulations nor the underpinning European legislation makes any provision for such an exemption to the requirements. I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, and I recognise why he feels for his constituent.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a time to reflect on issues that we have not addressed properly during the Session? Does he agree that one of those—I wonder whether there is any time to consider this in the few hours left to us—is the rights of women? There is an exhibition on slavery in the Upper Waiting Hall, and who would have thought that we would be told that that exists in this country today? We are now aware that female genital mutilation is reasonably widespread in this country and that women in our communities are prevented from voting. Is it not about time that we talked about the rights of women to education and a full life? Who would have thought that, in the 21st century, we would have to discuss such issues?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. In the course of this Session important debates have taken place relating to a number of them. I recall in particular the time that was allocated by the Backbench Business Committee around international women’s day and in anticipation of it, focusing on violence against women and violence in conflict situations. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has raised that through our leadership of the G8. He will no doubt be aware of the many steps taken by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) to support action in relation to female genital mutilation. I share with the hon. Gentleman and many Members of the House the outrage at the extent of modern slavery in this country, as illustrated and informed by the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. I attended its launch, which the Prime Minister undertook on Monday. The all-party group and Anthony Steen have done an important piece of work in bringing that exhibition here so that we can debate those issues.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

A recent meeting was held at Middlesex university in which three speakers variously said that Israelis support the death of Palestinians, glorify in Palestinian deaths and loot the bodies of dead Palestinians. When I wrote to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university about the anguish that such unfounded comments cause local residents, he advised that when he had intervened in the past about radical and offensive speakers, the student union had complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and the university was fined and reprimanded. May we therefore have a debate on anti-Semitism on university campuses and how we can prevent such occurrences?

[Mr Lansley]

I can understand how my hon. Friend might feel about that. It is of course a matter for the universities themselves, but he might consider raising it on the Adjournment, when the opportunity is once more available, as an important subject for us to consider. In the meantime I will take the opportunity to send to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university a copy of today’s Hansard in order to ask if he will reply to my hon. Friend and to me.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Early-day motion 1305 celebrates the work of Crick and Watson, Rosalind Franklin and others on an important day: today is the 60th anniversary of the publication of their work in Nature.

[That this House marks the 60th anniversary of the discovery of DNA; notes that the article entitled Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid was published by Francis Crick and James D. Watson in the scientific journal Nature in its 171st volume on 25 April 1953; further notes that that was the first publication which described the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA; further notes that much of the data that were used by Crick and Watson came from unpublished work by Rosalind Franklin and several others; applauds the discovery of DNA as having had a major impact on biology, particularly in the field of genetics; and further marks one of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 20th Century.]

It would be a great day for the Government to show some leadership on science and commit to holding Government-sponsored debates on major science topics so that the House can be informed and develop policy on some of the important consequences of the work of those scientists and other science disciplines—for example, the articles in the paper today about genetic editing, which is going to be an important issue in relation to food supply. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment to deliver such debates in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

As a Member of Parliament representing part of Cambridge, I am only too aware of that anniversary, of the tremendous character of those discoveries, and of the work that Crick and Watson and others did. That is recognised. For example, I was directly involved as Secretary of State in securing the future of the Francis Crick institute, which I see emerging next to the British Library. I think this Government are giving leadership on science. We are investing in science, we see it as an essential part of this country’s economic future, and we are supporting it to that effect, as well as recognising that the quality of our science has a unique contribution to make for the whole world. We are determined to build on that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Would the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate about the conflict in which insolvency practitioners find themselves when they are appointed by a bank to deal with the administration of a company that has failed owing to the mis-selling of interest rate swaps and hedging products by the very same bank? There is therefore a requirement for them to pursue a claim against the bank and the desire to remain loyal to their employer and to maintain a long-term business relationship with that bank, which requires the skills of poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a point which has been raised at business questions before. It is important to try to ensure clarity about how mis-selling claims are to be handled in order to give confidence and reassurance to small firms in particular. I will ensure that in the time available we are in contact with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about getting an answer to my hon. Friend on that point.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The measles outbreak is not just in Wales; we have had a steep increase in reported cases in Salford, mainly among older children—10 to 14-year-olds—who were not vaccinated in the 1990s, and I understand that about 10% of them have been hospitalised. Will the Leader of the House support my message to parents who did not have their children vaccinated when they were younger that it is absolutely vital that they take them now to be fully protected by the MMR vaccine? May we also have a statement from the Health Secretary—it would have to be today, of course—on what plans he has to boost the vaccination programme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a statement today, but I am sure that the hon. Lady and the House know that Public Health England is producing publicity to encourage unvaccinated children and young people to come forward for vaccination. Having been shadow Secretary of State from 2003, I know that on both sides of the House we were very clear that the MMR vaccine was safe. We now have vaccine coverage rates back up to record levels, which is important, but we of course have an inheritance of unvaccinated young people. If we can deal with that rapidly, we will offset what would otherwise be a really unfortunate risk from a very nasty disease.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on getting young people with special needs into work? A project in my constituency and across the London borough of Redbridge will hopefully, with the help of the parent group, Interface, the borough council and employers, have the first people taking up jobs shortly.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will join my hon. Friend in expressing appreciation in this House for the activities of Interface, other groups and his borough council. I welcome what he does on behalf of his constituents and applaud it.

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

The Lord Chancellor recently announced plans to introduce price-competitive tendering in criminal legal aid. The plans are ill thought through and will destroy the criminal justice system and the criminal law profession. May we please have an urgent debate in the next Session on that very important topic?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot anticipate debates in the next Session. What I can say is that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor have done in trying to secure better value and a much greater focus for legal aid is terrifically important. [Interruption.] We have a very generous legal aid system, compared with countries around the world. [Interruption.] The intention is not that we should become ungenerous, but that we must be more focused and ensure that legal aid supports those who genuinely require public support in order to undertake their cases.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the Safe and Sustainable review was established independently within the NHS by the joint committee of primary care trusts and that it is being sustained by NHS England on the same basis. Those are decisions for NHS England and I, of all people, must recognise that we have legislated to give it greater independence in decision making on the basis that it must lead on clinical matters. What he has said will of course be communicated to NHS England, and it will obviously consider carefully all the aspects of value for money associated with how it proceeds.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House use his influence with the Secretary of State for Education to find out why he has not come to the House today to answer for his decision yesterday to close the Department for Education offices at Castle View house in Runcorn, with the loss of at least 220 jobs, and to transfer the work to a more expensive location, despite the Runcorn office being the cheapest location, with the lowest-paid staff, in the 32nd most deprived borough in England and Wales? The opposition to that is shared in the private sector: the Halton chamber of commerce and enterprise is opposed to the move. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House today to make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I fear I do not think it will be possible for the Secretary of State to be here today to make a statement or answer an urgent question on that. I also recall that we had exchanges on this issue at business questions, and it has been the subject of meetings that have taken place, in particular with the permanent secretary at the Department for Education, who explained why the move was necessary to help secure the administration cost savings—and I must say that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has been exemplary in securing administration cost savings in his Department.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The National Assembly for Wales has now resolved to take forward the Welsh Government’s proposal to introduce presumed consent into the organ donation system. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the view of the Department of Health at Westminster is made clear through a written statement on the consideration that has been given to the impact that change will have on the increasingly successful organ donation system in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, my personal view is that the decision the Welsh Assembly Government are proceeding with is not the right one. From the Government’s point of view, I know that the Department of Health provided evidence in the consultation that illustrated that consequences and difficulties would flow to the organ donation system in England as a consequence of the proposed changes in Wales. If I may, in pursuance of this request I will ask my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary when and how he intends to follow through on those issues and on the concerns expressed at an earlier stage.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In a few days’ time in May, the European Union arms embargo on Syria will be up for expiry. The US Administration said there would be a red line if chemical weapons were used in Syria. It is increasingly clear they have been used, probably by the Syrian regime. Given that, what parliamentary accountability will there be before any decision is taken by our Government to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, which includes al-Qaeda-linked jihadists?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has regularly reported to the House on these issues, including at this Dispatch Box. What he has said when he was here is still true: these are difficult areas and dynamic situations, and as a consequence the Government are not ruling out further changes and, in discussions over the next few days with our European partners we will be discussing how the arms embargo has been amended and may be amended in future. My right hon. Friend has kept the House fully informed, therefore, and I am sure he will take every opportunity to do so again in the future.

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

A few weeks ago we had a debate on the lack of accountability in the NHS and I am afraid it appears that we need another one. On 19 April, these comments were made in Computer Weekly about Sir Bruce Keogh’s decision to suspend surgery at Leeds:

“Keogh, first by requesting unverified data, then by ignoring the data's obvious faults, then by breaching usual procedure in not seeking to clarify those faults, then apparently wilfully misinterpreting that data, and then using the weight of all these errors to tell Leeds to close its heart unit, may have committed a serious breach of protocols he had helped establish.”

Why is the Secretary of State for Health still refusing to have an independent investigation into this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said in response to an urgent question about these issues. I share the Health Secretary’s confidence in the decisions that Sir Bruce Keogh took and, indeed, his precautionary approach. As my hon. Friend will recall, in a matter of days he and NHS England were able to agree with Leeds general infirmary on how to proceed in a way that offered parents and children the necessary reassurance about safety.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Today’s quarterly growth figures are truly lamentable. May we have an emergency debate during the next few hours, so that although the Government have no new policies to offer, they can at least show their concern about the situation?

[Mr Lansley]

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I think that today’s figures are an encouraging sign of how the economy is healing. We know the economic backdrop and the House is under no illusions about how difficult the economic circumstances are, not just in this country but, as the IMF has made clear, across Europe in particular. The IMF’s forecasts for this country were for a limited return to growth, but that growth was stronger than that of France and Germany. Alongside that, we have to maintain the credibility of our fiscal position and give space for an activist monetary stance. The Growth and Infrastructure Bill and related measures show that in this Session we have taken every possible action to promote enterprise and wealth creation, because they are the only means by which the growth we are looking for will come.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is said that there are three types of economist: those who can count and those who cannot. [Interruption.] I knew that hon. Members would get that eventually. Given that this morning’s GDP growth figure of 0.3% was three times the much-reported best upper estimate of the BBC, may we have a debate on BBC bias?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate in this Session, but some Select Committees are taking every opportunity to scrutinise the governance of the BBC, so I encourage my hon. Friend to discuss the issue with them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Figures this week show that in the course of this Parliament, Hull will lose a total of £649 per head through local government and welfare cuts, compared with Surrey Heath, which will lose only £199 per head. May we have an urgent statement from the relevant Minister on why this Government want to penalise the most disadvantaged parts of this country?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but that is one of the poorest uses of statistics I have heard. One has to recognise the base one is starting from. In some parts of the country, Government grant to local authorities is very modest in the first place, while the consequences of reductions in central Government spending, which are necessary—we have to do it—are, in absolute terms, greater in those places where the original level of grant distributed was highest. We cannot avoid that simple fact. We are setting out to make sure that we are fair across the country and that the way in which grant is distributed reflects need properly.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

When a suitable opportunity presents itself, might we have a debate on magistrates courts and magistrates? Figures released earlier this week show that 3.8% of offenders who appear before magistrates courts are jailed, but the figure in Northamptonshire is the highest in the country at 6.5%. Such a debate would allow me and other Northamptonshire MPs to praise magistrates in Northamptonshire, including the Kettering bench, for their effective use of sentencing powers.

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Crime and Courts Bill has completed its passage through the House. I would not want to encourage him to believe that the Government want to compare sentences and praise sentencing in some courts relative to others. We in this House establish the legal framework, but we rightly expect magistrates and, indeed, judges to make their own decisions, and circumstances will vary across the country. It is entirely open for Members of Parliament to act in their own constituencies, as my hon. Friend does, and to speak freely on behalf of the people they represent.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Before the House rises, may we have a statement from the Chancellor about the pitiful state of the construction industry in this country? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Office for National Statistics established this morning that construction output has shrunk by a tenth under this Government and that 70,000 jobs in the sector were lost in the year to last December? Do Members not deserve an urgent opportunity to find out whether the Government have any plans to deal with that dreadful situation?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that construction orders were up in the last quarter and that new work is up. It is a bit rich for any Labour Member to speak about construction, because they know as well as I do, when they look in their hearts, that construction activity in this country, and house building in particular, fell off a cliff in 2008 as a consequence of the bust that the Labour Government said would never happen. We are fighting our way back. The Chancellor’s Budget set out unprecedented measures to support new house building in this country and the Government continue to spend more on infrastructure investment than the last Labour Government had planned to spend.

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

During this Session, we have had debates about skills and apprenticeships, tax competitiveness, the progress in cutting red tape, and investment in transport and digital infrastructure, such as the successful rural broadband project in North Yorkshire. When we return for the new Session, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate that pulls all those things together and reviews the progress towards making the UK a better place to do business?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. There are some very impressive schemes in North Yorkshire that demonstrate how IT can be used in rural areas. I am aware of that not least because of the way in which the telehealth and telecare systems were rolled out by North Yorkshire county council. In the year ahead, the introduction of the £2,000 employment allowance will reduce businesses’ national insurance contributions bill for employing people and stimulate further employment, we will move to having the joint lowest corporation tax rates among the G20 countries and there will be a tenfold increase in the investment allowance for businesses. I hope that it will be recognised that those measures and many others are making this country the best place to do business. In the next year, I hope that we will take every opportunity not only to add to that, but to shout about it in this country and beyond.

[Mr Speaker]

Miss Anne McIntosh.

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

How incredibly kind, Mr Speaker.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published its draft clauses for revising the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and asked the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to report by 29 April? We stand prepared to do that, but there is the slight problem that the House is not meeting next week to enable us to adopt our formal report. Prorogation is the only time when no Select Committee can meet. I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to ensure that the Department does not publish the clauses formally, but awaits the opinion of the Select Committee so that there is proper scrutiny and we do not repeat the situation that gave rise to the 1991 Act, which has caused so much concern that it now needs to be revised.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She raises an issue of timing. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consults her. What may be done formally during Prorogation is limited, but rather more may be done informally. Clauses would not be published during Prorogation. We will wait until the new Session before proceeding, subject to what is in the Gracious Speech, with the publication of further legislation.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1310 on the plight of disabled staff working for Tesco?

[That this House is concerned by reports from disabled Tesco workers in Harlow, that they may be forced into redundancy because their existing adjustments will not be transferred to the new site at Dagenham; notes reports that one warehouseman, who has been registered disabled and received an adjustment for many years, will be expected to hit new performance targets within an eight-week trial period at the new site; further notes the anxieties of disabled workers that this may make moving to the new site effectively impossible for them, pushing them into unemployment; and therefore urges Tesco’s management to allow Harlow workers to transfer to the new site with their existing pay and their existing terms and conditions, including disability adjustments.]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the closure of the Tesco distribution plant in Harlow, and there are disabled workers at risk of redundancy. One warehouseman has been registered as disabled for six years, yet he has been told that in order to transfer to Dagenham and keep his job, he must lose his disability adjustment and will be expected to hit new performance targets in an eight-week trial period at the new site. That will be impossible for him and could push him on to the dole. Will the Leader of the House urge Tesco to be more compassionate and treat all its workers fairly—disabled or otherwise—and ensure that workers who move to the Dagenham plant get the same pay and conditions for doing the same job?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend’s constituents in Harlow affected by the redundancy consequent on the changes to Tesco’s distribution facilities will be grateful to him for the way that he has represented them, not only as a community of employees, but in this instance individually. It is not for me at the Dispatch Box to urge anything on a private company in such a way, but I take the opportunity to draw what my hon. Friend has said directly to the attention of Tesco, and ask it to respond. I hope it will do so very sympathetically.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move,

That at the sittings on Tuesday 23 and Wednesday 24 April paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

I shall not detain the House for long. I simply want to draw attention to the fact that, as I announced at last Thursday’s business questions, tomorrow and Wednesday will be Opposition unallotted half days. The debates are guaranteed to last three hours and will be treated as Opposition days, notwithstanding what might happen with regard to the consideration of Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 22 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], followed by a motion relating to section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Tuesday 23 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Opposition day [unallotted half day]. There will be a debate on Northern Ireland. The debate will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.



Wednesday 24 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Opposition day [unallotted half day]. There will be a debate on the Agriculture Wages Board. The debate will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 25 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to banks and banking, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to railways, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

The date and time for the prorogation of Parliament will be set once the progress of business is certain.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s possibly full business timetable.

Yesterday we marked the end of an era with the funeral of Margaret Thatcher and our thoughts are with those who knew and loved her. I rarely agreed with her, but she did break the existing political and economic consensus and I think it is time that we did so again.

We are now entering the final hectic days of this parliamentary Session—if necessary. Next Wednesday it will be five weeks since the Prime Minister was last held to account in this House. Given the likely timing of Prorogation and the state opening on 8 May, it is possible that he will have to be answerable here again only twice before June. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs? What will he do to ensure that this House stops conveniently going into recess on Tuesdays, thereby letting the Prime Minister off the PMQ hook?

On Tuesday the Communities and Local Government Secretary got himself into a right old pickle with his chaotic plans for a free market free-for-all in conservatory construction. With Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tories uniting against him, he was forced to hint at an unspecified concession, but in the damning words of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), his colleague around the Cabinet table for two years,

“we will not believe what”

the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government says

“until we see the proposals in black and white.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 196.]

Will the Leader of the House clarify what this mysterious concession might be, or cannot this incompetent Government even organise a concession in a conservatory?

[Ms Eagle]

I suspect that the Patronage Secretary has got a few conservatories of his own.

For 60 years, the Agricultural Wages Board has protected vulnerable rural workers from exploitation at the hands of rich landowners, but on Tuesday, without so much as a hint of debate or a vote on the Floor of the House, the Government abolished it. This transfers £240 million from workers in some of the toughest and lowest-paid jobs in rural England directly into the back pockets of their employers. It is a disgrace that such a crucial protection can be removed without so much as a vote or even debate in the democratically elected House. It will take our Opposition day debate for the arguments to be heard, but rural workers protections have already been destroyed. It is clear from the parliamentary timetable that the Government could have made time for the issue to be debated properly. Anyone would think that the Prime Minister was trying to avoid business running on until Wednesdays.

In 28 of the 31 weeks that the Health Secretary has been in the job, England’s major accident and emergency units have missed the target for treating patients within four hours, but at the same time he has handed £2.2 billion of NHS funds back to the Treasury. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on how Ministers will bring all accident and emergency departments in England back up to the national standards they set? Despite being forced to backtrack once already, the Health Secretary persists with his damaging section 75 regulations, which will effectively privatise the NHS by the back door. The Lords will debate them next Wednesday, so will the Leader of the House tell us when we will debate them in the Commons?

Following the Budget, the International Monetary Fund this week again slashed the UK growth forecast and agreed with us that the Chancellor needs to change course. A year ago, it predicted growth of 2%, but that has now dropped to just 0.7%. Unemployment is rising, real wages are falling and borrowing is shooting through the roof, but the Chancellor’s only growth strategy seems to be to destroy rights at work. When will he get real and admit that his plan is just not working? Our downgraded Chancellor has been busy trying to be a man of the people, attempting to distract attention from his huge tax cut for millionaires by dropping his aitches in a speech at Morrisons—and he was not even very good at that. With a failing economic strategy, a faltering legislative programme and a Government adrift, will the Leader of the House tell the Chancellor that we need a change of course, not a change of accent?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, particularly for her gracious good wishes to those of us who knew Margaret Thatcher well. Many of us at her funeral service at St Paul’s cathedral yesterday were tempted to think it the end of an era, but we realised that that was not the case at all—it simply marked her passing. It was a very personal event, a funeral service, and even with the national and international presence, it did not represent the end of an era. It was a reflection of the character of Margaret Thatcher. I hope that that persists and that we all understand the importance of values and principles and of seeing them through to completion.

The hon. Lady asked about the Prime Minister’s response to questions in the House. The Prime Minister is assiduous in his attendance in, and support for, the House and in responding to questions. The number of statements made and questions he answers in response to them is unprecedented compared with his predecessors, and of course she neglected to observe that on 8 May, on the state opening of Parliament, the Prime Minister will open the debate on the Gracious Speech.

The hon. Lady talked about permitted development rights. She would not expect me to anticipate at business questions what will be a further debate in the other place on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, but under the circumstances I thought my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government did what was right. We know how important it is, through the extension of permitted development rights, to give people an opportunity—this carries through the principle of localism—to develop their own homes. This is not something we should disparage; it is something we should support, and it will have the additional benefit of supporting growth in many communities. We just want to ensure, recognising the debate in the House, that we do so in a way that recognises where concerns arise.

On forthcoming business, the Opposition have taken the opportunity to schedule a debate on the Agricultural Wages Board next week and we will debate it then.

On A and E waiting times, the hon. Lady raises a point that I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health respond to, but I am sure he will take further opportunities to do so. She should look—and perhaps talk to her hon. Friends in Scotland and Wales—and recognise that this has nothing to do with the character of the targets set. The targets were set at 95% on clinical advice—quite appropriately—but A and E departments are coming under a range of pressures during the course of a very severe winter. The situation in England is not different from that in Scotland and Wales; in fact, if anything, the pressures and resulting delays in treatment are greater in Wales and Scotland. Although she is not here at the moment, her right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) will have an Adjournment debate next week precisely to raise these issues.

Finally, the shadow Leader of the House talked about the IMF. When she looks at what the IMF has had to say, she will see that it is clear that there is considerable scope for optimism across the world, although there are substantial problems in Europe. We as a country are very exposed to those problems; none the less, according to the IMF we are anticipated to have higher growth rates in the year ahead than Germany or France. We also have employment levels that are considerably better and unemployment rates that are considerably lower than the average across the eurozone. I think she should express support for that, rather than seek to disparage this country’s economic performance.

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

May we have a statement on the case of Mr Haroon Aswat? This man is a suspected terrorist who the British courts have decided must be deported, not to some war-torn failed state, but to the United States of America. Now the European Court of Human Rights has decided that it is apparently not safe to deport him to America. If America is not considered a safe and suitable destination for deportees, that raises the question: where on earth is considered safe and suitable?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say. The Government are of course disappointed that the European Court of Human Rights found that extradition to America would breach Haroon Aswat’s human rights. That judgment does not become final for three months. My colleagues at the Home Office are considering as a matter of urgency all the legal options that are available. They include whether we request a referral of the case to the Court’s Grand Chamber. Given that, I hope the House will understand that I cannot comment further on the case at this time.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As we are coming to the end of the Session and the end of the Session for this Backbench Business Committee, may I take this opportunity on behalf of every member of the Committee to thank all Back Benchers who have brought us ideas for debates, which have always been interesting and have frequently been entertaining?

[Mr Lansley]

I share the hon. Lady’s view. In these seven months that I have had the privilege to be Leader of the House, I have had the opportunity to see the Backbench Business Committee at work. It has been a positive reform in this Parliament and it continues to improve and strengthen its position. I note that Andreas Whittam Smith talked in The Independent this morning about what he regarded as a revitalisation of Back-Bench power in this House. That is due not least to the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to support it.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Next week, Keith and Frances Smith of Warwick Books will present a petition to Downing street on the amount of corporation tax paid by Amazon. They want to ensure that there is a level playing field between multinational businesses and small businesses such as theirs. As part of that, all businesses must pay their fair share of taxation. The petition has been signed by over 100,000 people. Will the Leader of the House consider allocating time for a debate to ensure a fair tax system for all UK businesses?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. He will have noted that, in a debate yesterday, the general anti-abuse provision was discussed, which is a very important provision. What I would say reflects what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier in the year. We are concerned to pursue a twin track: to continue to reduce corporation tax, as the Chancellor set out in the Budget, so that we are highly competitive among international economies; and to promote and support enterprise and growth. We recognise that one of the most important ways to make the corporation tax reduction possible is to minimise evasion, reduce avoidance and tackle abuse. That is what the Government are doing. The more we can achieve that, the more we can ensure that the tax take is what it ought to be and reduce the rates of tax.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1199, in my name and those of other hon. Members?

[That this House expresses its disgust with and condemnation of Global Vision College, Manchester and its staff member Sunny Gilani, for stealing £1,500 in fees from an applicant who paid them this money, was unable to obtain a visa to the UK to take up a place at the college, asked for her money to be returned and has not received it despite several letters sent to the college by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton; warns prospective students to have nothing to do with these swindlers; calls on Greater Manchester Police to investigate this larceny; and calls on the Home Secretary to investigate the validity of this college in being able to recruit overseas students.]

Global Vision college has stolen £1,500 in advance fees from a niece of a most trusted constituent of mine who could not get a visa to come here from Pakistan. Despite prolonged correspondence from me, the college has refused to return the money. Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to warn all potential students to steer clear of these thieves and ask the Home Office to investigate whether such an institution should have the right to have overseas students?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me that, although I read the Order Paper assiduously, as he would expect, I have not particularly taken note of early-day motion 1199. I will of course read it and bring it to the attention of Ministers at the Home Office. I know that he is very careful in pursuit of his constituents’ interests, and I will encourage Home Office Ministers to investigate the matter further.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of Brighton and Hove city council’s proposal to install safe drug consumption rooms in the city? Have the Government been consulted by the council on the matter? May we have time for either a statement or a debate on that important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

We have not seen any detailed proposals. It is important to say that the Government will not support any actions that contravene the United Nations drugs conventions or the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Permitting premises to be used for consuming or possessing substances controlled under section 8 of the Act is illegal. As I say, we have not seen detailed proposals. The establishment or operation of drug injection rooms risks encouraging illicit trafficking and carries a significant risk of harm in local communities.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the future arrangements for the funerals of ex-Prime Ministers, given the fact that we have spent extravagantly— £10 million or £20 million—on Mrs Thatcher’s funeral? May we have a debate on future rules for future Prime Ministers, and can the Government publish all the detailed costs to aid that debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should know that matters of this kind are inappropriate for public debate, but that does not mean that they are not the subject of—[Interruption.] The preparations for future funerals are not a fit subject for public debate, but they are the subject of detailed consideration, as were the arrangements for Baroness Thatcher’s funeral over a substantial period. I do not recognise the figures he mentioned; I have no knowledge of any basis for figures of that kind. We have made it clear that the figures will be substantially below what he mentioned and they will of course be published in due course. All the arrangements relating to Baroness Thatcher’s funeral seemed to me entirely appropriate and fitting in the circumstances.

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

Section 68 on page 21 of the General Medical Council’s “Good Medical Practice” states:

“You must be honest and trustworthy in all your communication with patients and colleagues. This means you must make clear the limits of your knowledge and make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is accurate.”

Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, failed to abide by that duty in his decision to suspend children’s heart surgery at the Leeds general infirmary. When are we going to get a statement from the Secretary of State for Health that will finally announce a proper investigation into this fiasco?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend in relation to Sir Bruce Keogh. I think that he acted as anybody, objectively, would believe he should have done when in receipt of that information, in order to take a precautionary approach while trying to establish all the facts and to put patient safety first.

On my hon. Friend’s question about a statement, I know that he was here in his place when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responded to an urgent question on Monday. My right hon. Friend answered questions at that point, as well as making it clear that he would be willing to do so again in the future.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent Richard Freeman has not seen his son in six years, since his ex-wife abducted him and went to live in America. Despite numerous British court orders stating that his son should be returned to him, his ex-wife has refused to comply. Government figures show that instances of parental child abduction have risen by 88% over the past decade. May we have an urgent debate on this rapidly growing problem? What steps can be taken to ensure that parents can be reunited with their children?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that Members across the House will have encountered cases similar to the one that the hon. Lady raises. They are very distressing and cause immense harm to families. Ministers are well aware of this issue, but I will of course ensure that my hon. Friends respond to her on this case. I do not recall this matter being debated recently, so she and colleagues across the House might like to ascertain whether a suitable opportunity could be found for an Adjournment or Back-Bench debate, as I know many Members are concerned about it.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Two of my constituents recently contacted me about a loophole that allowed the Bank of Ireland to raise the differential rate on their mortgage, leading to a 200% increase. The Financial Services Authority argued that it could do nothing about it, as it had happened before 2004. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement from the Treasury so that we can find out what can be done about this?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he suggested, such cases are the responsibility of what is now the Financial Conduct Authority, and he will know that Martin Wheatley, the chief executive of the FCA, has exchanged correspondence on the matter with the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). Those letters have been published on the parliamentary website. Mr Wheatley states:

“We currently have no plans to treat this as a prima facie case of mis-selling.”

In the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the FCA appears to cite the fact that the mortgages originated before such mortgages were included in the scope of regulation in 2004, and that to address the issue would require retrospective legislation. My hon. Friend will understand that we could consider that only in the most exceptional circumstances. However, I understand that the Bank of Ireland has waived early repayment charges for customers affected by the changes. That might mean that his constituents will be able to find a more competitive rate elsewhere.

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

The new director-general of the BBC took up his post at the beginning of April. The BBC is of course independent of the Government, but is it not time to have a debate in Government time to remind the BBC of its regional responsibilities and of the fact that there should be some correlation between the licence fees raised in certain regions and the amount of programmes commissioned in those regions?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady makes a point that I know is important to Members, and I do not know whether she had the chance to raise it with Ministers at Culture, Media and Sport questions a few minutes ago. I cannot at this stage promise any business in this Session—we are looking at business in the next one—but it would probably not be appropriate for the Government to raise the matter that she mentions, save, further on, as part of the debate leading to the renewal of the BBC’s charter. However, she might find opportunities elsewhere in the House to debate the issue.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Very graciously, you, Mr Speaker, came to my constituency last week to open the first London office of the Silver Star Appeal diabetes trust, and later that week I handed over a Ladbrokes cheque to St Luke’s hospice as a result of a grand national bet I had placed. To my horror, I discovered that mean-minded Harrow council has removed discretionary rate relief from all charities in Harrow, as a result of which St Luke’s hospice alone will lose £17,000 a year. May we have a debate on the operation of non-domestic rate relief by local authorities, as we try to build a big society in which charities can provide services that the public sector does not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad my hon. Friend raises that point, because I think it will be of concern to Members across the House. In all our constituencies we look to local authorities to exercise their community responsibilities. That is particularly the case at present, as local authorities have growth incentives that they can use to support not only enterprise locally but important community facilities. I therefore hope what my hon. Friend has said will be heard not only in this House but in the chamber of his council.

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

I am sure both you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will agree that the future of our country depends greatly on entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship and business start-ups, and that many small businesses have been ill served by the banking sector in this country over a number of years. Is the Leader of the House aware that many small business start-ups are now using crowd financing for funding? That is a new way of regenerating our economies and communities, but is he also aware that the Financial Conduct Authority will introduce a regulation on that in about three weeks’ time—on 14 May, I think? Only a very small number of people have been consulted on it. People with crowd funding expertise in relation to start-up businesses have not been consulted, and neither has this House been consulted on a measure that is vital to the future of enterprise.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of start-ups, and in the last year for which figures are available more new businesses were created in this country than in any of the previous 20 years. It is important that we continue to support start-ups, however, and the availability of finance is central to the success of new businesses. I am aware that new businesses are increasingly using crowd financing and other innovative sources of funding, although I was not aware of the details relating to any FCA regulation. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury to write to the hon. Gentleman about that, and to let us know about the processes for the scrutiny of any such regulation.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1282 on the rights of Tesco workers in Harlow?

[That this House notes that whilst Tesco has stated that it has no plans to re-open its Harlow site at a future date, there is evidence from the USDAW trade union that Tesco gave the same assurances when it shut the Feny Lock plant, which was later reopened with workers on lower pay; regrets therefore that many Harlow workers are now facing redundancy and, despite promises of support, many are still without jobs to go to; further regrets that Tesco's corporate pay protection policy appears only to apply to certain elements of salary rather than to total compensation; therefore urges Tesco to explain why managers from the closing Harlow plant will be able to move to the Dagenham plant with full terms and conditions, but that this is being denied to Harlow workers; and further urges the company to allow its Harlow workers to move across to the Dagenham plant with their full existing level of pay.]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Tesco is closing a distribution centre in Harlow, which will affect 800 jobs in my constituency, including those of many members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Despite promises of pay protection, in reality workers are facing losses of up to one third of their income if they move to the new Dagenham site, and for many that will be unaffordable. May we have an urgent debate on workers’ rights, so that Parliament can consider how to stop big corporations maltreating their workers?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I know he has been working very hard to support his constituents who are affected by this. The centre is not far from my constituency, so I know about what is happening, and other Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), have concerns about similar issues. Jobcentre Plus is supporting those at risk of redundancy at the centre. Given my hon. Friend’s views and the concerns of other Members and of this House on this important matter, he might like to consider seeking, if not in this Session then early in the next one, a debate on the Adjournment.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) introduced a welcome debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on the impact of police cautions on young people in their later years, to which the Minister responded constructively. The debate also threw up wider issues such as how Criminal Records Bureau disclosures of cautions and minor convictions are blighting people’s lives years and decades later—and there were similar impacts on candidates of all parties during the police and crime commissioner elections. May we have an early debate to encourage Ministers to propose early action to put a stop to this unfair and discriminatory practice?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that matter and to hear that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice gave a constructive and positive response. If I may, I will check with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) about when there might be a further opportunity for Home Office Ministers to tell us more about their views on the matter.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the effectiveness of the amendments to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 that came into effect two months ago? The House will recall that the amendments made it a criminal offence for metal dealers to pay in cash for scrap. Initial figures from Leicestershire police show a pleasing 47% decrease in the incidence of metal theft across the county. That will be a great relief to churches and others in my constituency who have been targeted repeatedly by metal thieves.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 will create a robust new licensing regime that will further restrict the market for stolen metals. My hon. Friend is right that we are making progress. The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that there has been a 38% reduction in recorded metal theft offences. Likewise, Network Rail and the Energy Networks Association report a big reduction. This is an important matter not only to churches, but, as I know from my constituency, to villages that have had their communications completely cut off, in some cases a number of times, because of the theft of metal from the networks. We are taking action, not least with the benefit of that private Member’s Bill.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Chancellor’s policies and his failure to ensure that banks support small and medium-sized businesses? A company wrote to me recently, saying that

“we keep hearing on the news that the government want to see SMEs growing stronger. How can this happen if SMEs do not get financial support from their banks.”

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and will no doubt have taken the opportunity to raise those issues in the debate on the Finance Bill. I draw to his attention what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said recently about the launch of the business bank, which will deliver billions of pounds of additional support through lending to businesses.

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

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will notice that future business includes a motion on draft regulations under the Reservoirs Act 1975 that are to be considered shortly by the relevant Statutory Instrument Committee. It is an integral and essential part of those regulations that the safety guidance for reservoirs recommended by the Institution of Civil Engineers be approved and released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A number of projects that are in the pipeline, such as the reservoir project in my own Pickering area, are dependent on that advice, which has been awaited since 2010. May I make an urgent request for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box to give the reasons for that delay or to publish that guidance forthwith?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask my colleagues at DEFRA about the matter that my hon. Friend rightly raises and seek a response for her as soon as possible.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

BBC Radio Humberside reported this morning on fake internet job adverts that claim to be for companies such as B & Q. They ask for personal details, such as bank account details, and money for Criminal Records Bureau checks up front. With people desperate for work in Hull, some may fall prey to such scams. Please may we have a debate on how we can raise awareness of this issue and go after these criminals who are preying on my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

That is a very important point. I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least at the Department for Work and Pensions, who I hope are aware of what the hon. Lady has described through their Jobcentre Plus network, to see what action they and local authorities can take.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

May I say how much I am looking forward to welcoming you to Plymouth tomorrow, Mr Speaker, to meet HMS Heroes and members of the Youth Parliament?

Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that there is only one word to say about yesterday’s funeral of Baroness Thatcher, and that that is “Britannia”?

[Mr Lansley]

In St Paul’s cathedral, where so many heroes of this country are memorialised, I thought yesterday that we were taking our leave not only of a woman who inspired many and achieved so much, but of the first woman Prime Minister. She will figure high among great Britons in future.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Yet another deadline has come and gone for the award of the Thameslink rolling stock contract, and there have been at least 10 similar deadlines. The original decision to award the contract was made in June 2011. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the failings of the Department for Transport and its inability to award this Thameslink contract?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise time at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman will note that my hon. Friends from the Department for Transport will answer questions on Thursday 25 April, which might be an appropriate point. In the meantime I will check with them to see whether there is anything on which they can further update the hon. Gentleman.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The main rail route into Cleethorpes has been closed since 9 February following a landslip at Hatfield near Doncaster. In the short term, the most important thing is to restore services, but in the longer term there are concerns about the safety and monitoring of the spoil tips. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement outlining the responsibilities of the various regulatory agencies and the frequencies of inspections?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is an important issue for those in north Lincolnshire. I reiterate my point about Transport questions next Thursday because he will clearly want to raise that issue if possible. I will also contact my hon. Friends because I know they will want to take action on this issue and provide reassurances as soon as they can.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the NHS in London in the light of the review of health services in London published by Imperial college this week? In the foreword, Ruth Carnall—the former chief executive of the NHS in London—makes it clear that when the Leader of House was Secretary of State for Health he was wrong to halt the reforms in 2010, including “A Picture of Health” in my area of south-east London, and that there were consequences for patients as a direct result of his decision. Such a debate would give him an opportunity to apologise to my constituents for the serious problems caused in south-east London as a result of that decision.

[Mr Lansley]

I have not seen the foreword by Ruth Carnall, but it is clear that at the last election “A Picture of Health” was wholly opposed by very large parts of the community in south-east London. People voted against it and for a Government who would not put up with it—we were clear about instituting a moratorium on that so that we could proceed with more rational proposals that would deliver more secure and sustainable services for patients. That is what is happening in south-east London as a consequence of the use of legislation passed by the previous Government but never used, to institute a special administration regime.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the frequency of Prime Minister’s questions. My recollection is that it was Tony Blair who moved to holding it on one day a week rather than two. When she was here, Mrs Thatcher loved this place, this mother of Parliaments, and she would come twice a week to answer Prime Minister’s questions. Would it be a fitting tribute to her for the Leader of the House to make a statement next week, reinstating Prime Minister’s questions twice a week?

[Mr Lansley]

I am in favour of paying tribute to Mrs Thatcher in very many ways, but that is probably not one of them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is naughty because he knows perfectly well that this is not the mother of Parliaments. He is, however, right on one point: because of the Government’s jiggery-pokery, the Prime Minister will answer Prime Minister’s questions only four times in 12 weeks. Even worse, the Chancellor will probably not answer Treasury questions until three whole months have passed since the Budget. The first Treasury questions is likely to be on 18 or 25 June. We could solve all that if the Government fulfilled their promise to bring in a House business committee by the third year of this Parliament. We were generous and allowed that not to be by the beginning of the third year—that is what we all thought the logic meant—but we are now at the end of the third year. I presume that we could use the week after next just to introduce that legislation.

[Mr Lansley]

As far as I could see, the House was happy when I published a calendar for the year ahead last October. Most of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises are a simple consequence of that calendar. In so far as they are not, they appear to be the consequence of his engaging in speculation about the date of Prorogation. The date of Prorogation, of course, has not been set.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Sheep farmers in upland areas of Britain have suffered unprecedented disaster as a result of recent snowfalls. Today’s written statement by the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), is welcome, and I have just learned that I have secured an Adjournment debate on this matter next Tuesday. Will the Leader of the House encourage hon. Members who want to represent the people who are suffering in their communities to attend that debate, where their contributions will be very welcome?

[Mr Lansley]

Many people across the country, including those who live far from the upland areas where sheep farming is pursued, will none the less have felt distressed about what happened to hill farmers and their sheep. I declare an interest, as my sister-in-law is responsible for sheep farming in a part of north Wales. Many people living in my hon. Friend’s part of north Wales have been particularly hard hit, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the agriculture Minister was able to announce details of additional support today. I hope Members will support my hon. Friend’s Adjournment debate next week. This would demonstrate not only that practical support will be available to those affected, but that a great deal of shared feeling exists about the circumstances that have hit these people so hard.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We had a Westminster Hall debate in March on the Foreign Office’s report on its human rights work in 2011. It was frustrating because we had only 90 minutes to discuss the report on all aspects of its human rights work. The 2012 report was published just this week. Will the Leader of the House look at whether we can have a full day’s debate on that report on the Floor of the House? Will he talk to the Select Committee Chair and the Government about that, so that we do not end up discussing this report in March 2014—with a two-year time lag?

[Mr Lansley]

I shall, if I may, talk to my colleagues in the Foreign Office and to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. If I recall correctly, the debate arose in Westminster Hall, following a Select Committee report. This is more properly a matter for the Select Committee and the Liaison Committee first, and I shall of course discuss it with them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Across the nation, some 70,000 disabled wheelchair-bound children are awaiting the right wheelchair to enable them to lead full and active childhoods with as much independence as possible. The Leader of the House will know that the charity Whizz-Kidz does much excellent work in providing such wheelchairs to children in Kettering and across the country. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on how charities such as Whizz-Kidz can take best advantage of the NHS reforms to get the right wheelchairs to the right children as quickly as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had the privilege of speaking at the reception for Whizz-Kidz in the later part of last year. I saw how it takes the opportunity to put children in the right wheelchair in a day, bringing fantastic improvements in the availability of the right wheelchair support for children. It is precisely because of that sort of evidence of how charities, as well as private sector organisations, can add value to the NHS that the section 75 regulations are going through as they are. They are not about privatising services; they do not do any privatisation: what they do is give those responsible for commissioning these services the opportunity to look at how they can deliver the best possible service to their patients.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

North Cheshire hospitals are set to lose hundreds of posts, yet the Department of Health is paying £2.2 billion back to the Treasury and is spending millions on a totally unnecessary reorganisation. May we therefore have a debate on the competence of the Department of Health, which is hitting front-line services while not spending its full budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I was Secretary of State for Health, so I understand the position. The NHS quite properly recorded a surplus for the previous year, amounting to about £1.6 billion. However, there is a distinction to be drawn between the availability of resources within the NHS and Government financial accounting for the Department of Health as a whole. What happened—and I think it is reflected in what has happened this year—was that a surplus in the Department was not spent during the financial year and was therefore once more available to the Treasury; but that does not mean that the Department did not ensure that the NHS organisations with the surpluses would continue to have access to them in future years.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Next Thursday, theoretically, I shall initiate an end-of-day debate about the appalling human rights situation in Burma. It is particularly appalling for the Rohingya people, who are being slaughtered daily. The European Union will decide on Monday whether to end sanctions against Burma. May we have an early statement to confirm that, while approving of political reform, the EU does not approve of ethnic cleansing in Burma?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the issue raised by my hon. Friend is causing concern throughout the House. The British Government regularly raise our human rights concerns with the Burmese Government, and both the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi did so this week during meetings with members of a visiting Burmese Government delegation. We have always said that when serious crimes have been committed, those who have perpetrated them must be held accountable for their actions.

If my hon. Friend were to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he might have an opportunity to raise the issue during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, and, given the business that I have announced, I personally imagine that he will have an opportunity to initiate his debate on Thursday.

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

May we have a debate on access to NHS data? On Tuesday, I was told in a written answer that information on A and E waiting times at Trafford general hospital was not available, but I have subsequently learnt that it is. On Tuesday, during health questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), agreed to meet me and parliamentary neighbours to discuss the situation. Will the Leader of the House help to expedite that meeting?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course contact Health Ministers and ask whether they can expedite those discussions, but I should add that in the NHS we are publishing not only more data but more relevant data than ever before. That is particularly true of not just A and E waiting times, but the whole set of quality indicators on the A and E dashboard. Much more relevant information is being provided, and is being provided at hospital level. I am surprised by what the hon. Lady has said, given that we are now publishing more and better data.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Home Office on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, in the light of revelations from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection about serious cruelty during experimentation at Imperial College London?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend has secured a debate in Westminster Hall on 5 February on the regulation of animal experiments and testing. He will be aware that the use of living animals in scientific procedures that may cause pain, suffering, distress or harm is strictly regulated under the Act.

I know from working with companies and with the university in my constituency that we have what is, in my view, the strongest regime in the world in this regard, but we must always be vigilant. Home Office inspectors are investigating the allegations of cruelty and bad practice at Imperial college’s Hammersmith campus, and will make recommendations in regard to any action that needs to be taken as a matter of urgency. However, I cannot prejudice what their investigations may lead to.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent Louisa Nkang was granted indefinite leave to remain in this country in January 2011, but has been waiting for more than two years for the release of immigration status documents because the authorities say that they are still conducting security checks. The situation is hugely distressing for her, and the UK Border Agency has given me an unsatisfactory response. What advice can the Leader of the House give me?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates good attendance in the House and he will have seen that a number of Members on both sides have raised issues about the performance of the Border Agency during a number of business questions. Ministers at the Home Office are actively aware and engaged and they are reforming the agency. That is why the Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and made the announcements she did shortly before the Easter recess. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support Home Office Ministers in seeing those changes through.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

This year in my constituency, Conservative-run Lancashire county council has reduced its part of the council tax bill. Pendle borough council, run by a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, has frozen its part of the council tax bill. Labour’s police and crime commissioner for Lancashire has increased his part of the council tax bill. May we therefore have a debate on how we can help hard-working families with the cost of living by keeping council tax low?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion and think it would be very helpful if we found such an opportunity. Of course, the debate on the Gracious Speech at the start of the next Session might well provide an opportunity to talk not just about helping councils to fund a council tax freeze for the third consecutive year but about addressing the issue of precepting authorities, too. In the debates on the Finance Bill, we can discuss the fact that we have cancelled Labour’s planned fuel duty increase, which is saving a typical motorist £40 a year. We have increased the personal income tax allowance, leading to a cash tax cut of £267 in the tax year ahead. Those are a range of changes with a direct impact on supporting people with the cost of living during tough times.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House suggests that we should wait until Foreign Office questions on Tuesday to raise the issue of Burma, but that might be too late. Human Rights Watch’s report on crimes against humanity and against the Rohingya people in Burma is out on Monday and the sanctions will be discussed on Monday, so Tuesday will be too late. Will the Leader of the House urgently raise the subject of the report with the Foreign Secretary before he goes into the debate on EU sanctions?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I will of course ask the Foreign Secretary or Foreign Office Ministers about that issue and, if appropriate, whether there is any update that they can give the House when it sits on Monday.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move,

That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 15 January 2013, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill presented to both Houses on 22 November 2012 (Cm 8499), and that the Committee should report by 31 October 2013.

That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords;

That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That Mr Crispin Blunt, Steve Brine, Lorely Burt, Mr Nick Gibb, Sir Alan Meale and Derek Twigg be members of the Committee.

The motion arises from the statement made on 22 November last year by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in response to a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights. That judgment required the Government to bring forward legislative proposals on prisoner voting for Parliament to consider. The Justice Secretary published the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill and proposed that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. In this motion today, the Government are seeking the establishment of a Joint Committee to consider that draft legislation.

The Justice Secretary made it clear in November that although Ministers might have strong personal views on this matter, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court’s judgment. Equally, however, the Justice Secretary was clear that Parliament is sovereign, a fact recognised explicitly by the Human Rights Act 1998, and the current law passed by Parliament will remain in force unless and until it is changed.

The Government believe that it is right that Parliament should be given the opportunity fully to consider the difficult and contentious issue of prisoner voting. That is why we brought forward draft legislative proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. We consider that to be the most appropriate course of action, given the importance of the issue and the strong views that exist across both Houses. It will be for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation, which contains a number of options reflecting the spectrum of views that we know exist on this question. The Lords started the process of establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny in January. Following discussions through the usual channels, the Government tabled a motion on 1 March to nominate the Commons Members to serve on the Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others subsequently tabled an amendment, which has necessitated the debate we are having today. I understand the purpose behind the amendment. Following the implementation of the Wright report, we now elect the Chairs of most Select Committees, and the membership of those Committees is determined by elections within the political parties. It might therefore be argued that it would be in the spirit of the Wright report for the membership of pre-legislative Committees similarly to be elected by the House and by the parties, rather than determined by the Government and through the usual channels.

However, there are strong arguments of principle and of practicality against such a move. As a matter of principle, joint pre-legislative Committees need to be carefully balanced to ensure that they properly reflect all shades of interest and opinion across both Houses of Parliament. To ensure that scrutiny is rigorous, that means including critics of the legislation as well as its supporters. With the best will in the world, a process of election is unlikely to achieve that balance. If a majority of the House has a prior view on a particular piece of legislation, that view is likely to be reflected in the composition of any Committee appointed following elections.

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

I am just wondering whether we could save some time tonight. If that is the right hon. Gentleman’s position, will he tell us which members of the Committee will be in favour of the proposal and which will be opposed to it, under the balanced arrangements that he has arrived at?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has quite understood the character of the Bill. It offers options, and to that extent—

[Steve McCabe]

I was just following up on what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, and for the benefit of the House and the hon. Gentleman I am attempting to explain that acceptance of the amendment to tonight’s motion might be inferred to be establishing a point of principle. I am explaining that there are objections in principle to that approach to joint pre-legislative Committees.

The point that I was making was that if a majority of the House had a prior view on a particular piece of legislation, that view would be likely to be reflected in the composition of any Committee appointed following elections. In my view, it is not healthy for a legislative Committee to hear only one side of the arguments. If the Commons membership of Joint Committees were determined by election, that would leave the House of Lords to seek to achieve the necessary balance through appointments in that House. I doubt that Members of the other place would welcome that, as it could fetter their choice considerably.

On a practical level, I believe that it would be counter-productive to elect Members to serve on Committees undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny. There is usually an imperative to establish a Joint Committee as quickly as possible after the publication of a draft Bill to enable the Committee to complete its work in time for the Bill proper to be introduced in Parliament later in the Session, or by a specified date. A process of elections conducted by the parties would be bound to delay the establishment of Joint Committees, giving the Committees less time to complete their work or prejudicing the Bill’s timetable.

In addition, I would point out to Members that the membership of the Joint Committee is not imposed by Government or by the usual channels. Members have an opportunity to table amendments to the motion put down, as demonstrated today, and if they wish to, to suggest alternative names to serve on the Committee. The whole House then has an opportunity to vote on the membership. Such is the character of this evening’s debate that I would say that I am not aware of any objection in practice to the proposed membership of the Joint Committee.

Finally, I should emphasise that to endorse the principle behind the amendment before us would represent a significant change in the way in which we conduct legislative scrutiny. If we are to make such a change, we should do so only after a full investigation of the all the potential consequences, both intended and unintended. That would include proper consultation with the parties affected, including the Liaison and Procedure Committees both in this House and in the other place. Members will recall that the Wright report made a wide range of recommendations designed to improve Parliament’s scrutiny role, but I note that it did not recommend the change suggested in the amendment.

For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press his amendment to a Division today, and I hope that the House will resolve to establish this Committee and allow it to get on with its work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I do not mean to detain the House too long, but the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made some important points and I want to respond to a number of them.

My hon. Friend put some interesting points, but I remind him that when we make changes to our procedures we should proceed on the basis of full consultation and discussion across the House, and on the basis of investigation and recommendation from our Select Committees. As it happens, not only does the Procedure Committee intend to consider questions relating to the Selection Committee, as the shadow Leader of the House made clear, but I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is considering progress on the implementation of the Wright reforms.

I have not heard in the course of the debate an objection as such to the proposed membership of the Joint Committee from this House, and I perceive no delay on the part of Government once the Lords has completed its process of finding members. My hon. Friend’s arguments left out the Lords in this context. As we are talking about a Joint Committee, it is important to recognise that balancing the Committee is important across both Houses, not just in this House.

I continue to depart from my hon. Friend on the issue of elections for specific legislative scrutiny. Notwithstanding the points he makes, I think there is a point of principle about the risk of the election of Members to that scrutiny committee prejudicing the process of dispassionate scrutiny. I heard what he said about the nominations coming through a process of consultation within the usual channels. The shadow Leader of the House and I are not the usual channels. The proposal emerged from within the usual channels. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposed membership, I think he will certainly conclude that the proposed membership of the Joint Committee will clearly be dispassionate and independent in its scrutiny, the members of the Committee having taken differing positions themselves and having obvious expertise to bring to the subject.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for taking an intervention. May I remind him ever so nicely that in Northern Ireland we have 1.8 million people? Will he explain why no representative in the House from Northern Ireland has been selected to sit on the Committee? We do have some prisoners in Northern Ireland. It is a very controversial issue in Northern Ireland. Please do not tell me that justice is devolved. I do not sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I sit in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the membership of the Committee is not large and it would be difficult to pursue balance across the House. It is in any case the purpose of the pre-legislative scrutiny not to decide on the Bill, but to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it is in a fit state and to make recommendations so that the House can come on to consider the policy of the Bill and its legislative implementation, which will give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to comment on it.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) to forgive me if he is still to make his contribution. I anticipated that there would not be an extended debate beyond this point, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch I wanted to respond to the debate up to that point because I thought he made important points that were worth responding to and considering in future.

Sittings of the House (Wednesday 17 April)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move,

That, on Wednesday 17 April:

(1) the House shall meet at 2.30 pm and the moment of interruption shall be at 10.00 pm;

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions), no questions shall be taken other than questions which are in the Speaker’s opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business;

(3) the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at 2.30 pm and continue for up to four and a half hours; and

(4) in calculating the period of four and a half hours in paragraph (3) no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting in Westminster Hall may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or in a committee of the whole House.

The motion before the House proposes two principal changes to the business of the House tomorrow. The first part of the motion provides for the House to sit at 2.30 pm, with the moment of interruption at 10 pm. This is instead of the usual starting time of 11.30 am with the moment of interruption at 7 pm.

It is not without precedent for the House to change its sitting times to deal with specific, and tragic, circumstances. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members may remember that the House was rightly recalled to pay tributes to the Her Majesty the Queen Mother following her death in 2002, but then also delayed returning from recess to accommodate the funeral arrangements.

The change in sitting times will allow Members from across the House who wish to pay their respects at the funeral of Baroness Thatcher to do so. The effect of an objection to this motion would be to deny colleagues, friends and others who wish to pay their respects that opportunity. There can be no justification for this. This is a debate about the sitting hours for tomorrow, and it should not be abused by those seeking now to debate the legacy of Baroness Thatcher. There was an opportunity to do that in the debate last Wednesday, and I remind the House that 77 right hon. and hon. Members contributed to that debate.

I thank Her Majesty’s official Opposition for the way in which they have worked across the House to provide proper respect for the longest serving Prime Minister of the last century. The Leader of the Opposition, the acting shadow Deputy Leader of the House and other Labour Members paid generous tributes in that debate, not necessarily endorsing or agreeing with the policies of Baroness Thatcher but, I thought, very generously paying proper respect. In like spirit, the proposal to change the sitting hours tomorrow, and to defer questions on that day until next week, has been taken after consultation with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and I am grateful for the approach that they have taken.

The second effect of the motion is to suspend the operation of the oral questions rota for the day. This, too, is being done following consultation with, and the agreement of, the official Opposition. Should the motion be approved by the House, the consequence for Members is that the ballots that have already taken place will be rolled over until next week, and the Table Office has helpfully contacted affected Members to explain this to them.

It is quite proper, in the circumstances, for the House to defer questions by one week. The Prime Minister takes his responsibilities to this House very seriously, as evidenced by the extent to which he not only responds to questions but makes statements to the House. I am sure that the vast majority of the House will understand what is being proposed and why. It is simply a matter of decency and respect that, in returning from the funeral service and receptions tomorrow, Members should not immediately enter into the character of business customary at Wednesday’s questions.

As a consequence of the House agreeing to meet at 2.30 pm, paragraphs (3) and (4) of the motion provide for Westminster Hall also to meet at 2.30 pm, which is an obvious and common-sense addition to the first two parts of the motion.

I do not intend to detain the House any further. This is a simple motion, confined to the times of the House’s sittings tomorrow, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was present for Defence questions yesterday, and heard the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), pay tribute to the recently fallen.

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for what she said earlier. It put me in mind of a caller to “Any Answers” on Radio 4 on Saturday, who said that, in his view, it was not a matter of whether one supported or opposed what Margaret Thatcher had done, but a matter of understanding what was proper, decent and respectful in relation to someone who had clearly been of immense importance to the country. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newport West said in the debate last Wednesday that history would judge her to have been a great Prime Minister.

The hon. Lady asked about the date of Prorogation. When she is able to tell me that we have completed all the business whose completion is required in the current Session, I shall be able to tell her the date of Prorogation, but I cannot do so until then.

No one would accuse the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) of having changed, but what did change was this country under Margaret Thatcher. Moreover, at each of the elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987 she was returned with an increased vote from the people of the country. That was another change.

The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) asked the House to search for a consensus. I am not sure that anyone has ever established a consensus with the hon. Gentleman. However, in the midst of a litany of false analogies and irrelevancies, he did say one relevant thing. He said “That is what we are here for: to be here.” I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that since his election on 30 March last year, he has been here for just 13% of the votes.

[George Galloway]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am responding to the debate.

Let me just say this: it seems to me that, to coin a phrase, the hon. Gentleman broke his own bat before coming to the crease.

[George Galloway]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. He would not want to mislead the House or the public on that point. First, I was elected on 29 March, and the House of Commons has been on holiday 50% of the time since then. I am in the House of Commons every day; I just do not want to vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee—

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 25 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 26 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by debate on a motion relating to flood insurance, followed by the pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.

The business for the week commencing 15 April will be:

Monday 15 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Tuesday 16 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Defamation Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 17 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 1).

Thursday 18 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 2).

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 18, 22 and 25 April will be:

Thursday 18 April—Debate on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee report on the road to UNFCCC COP and beyond, followed by debate on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee report on low-carbon growth links with China.

Monday 22 April—Debate on an e-petition relating to immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in 2014.

Tuesday 25 April—Debate on the Transport Select Committee report on road safety, followed by debate on the Transport Select Committee report on plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy?

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and congratulate him on the fact that there have been no sudden U-turns, on the business at least.

This is our last business questions session before we rise for recess, so may I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, staff, the Leader of the House and all colleagues from across the House a happy Easter? Would the Leader of the House care to comment on rumours that there are plans afoot to start selling a coalition Easter egg? It would have shiny yellow wrapping but the chocolate would be true blue. Despite the slick advertising it would be entirely hollow, and it would come with two free mugs and a health warning.

The situation on the European Union bank bail-out for Cyprus is volatile and fast-moving. The Government gave assurances at the weekend that no British service personnel or civil servants working in Cyprus would lose out, and then had to dispatch an aircraft full of cash to fulfil that promise. As Parliament will rise on Tuesday for the Easter recess and not return until 15 April, and because a bank run in a eurozone country would have serious implications for the UK, will the right hon. Gentleman consider recalling the House if there is a serious deterioration in the situation?

While the Chancellor was busy revealing the scale of his economic failure in this House, the other place was voting to defeat his absurd shares for employment rights scheme, which was announced with great fanfare at the Tory party conference. Mrs Thatcher’s favourite Chancellor, Lord Lawson, was so impressed with his successor’s flagship policy that he voted against it—he was not the only one. So will the Government now see sense and abandon this appalling policy before the Growth and Infrastructure Bill returns to the Commons on 16 April?

Mr Speaker, you have just made a statement about yesterday’s Budget leak. It included market-sensitive information being leaked on Twitter before the Chancellor had even opened his mouth. We welcome the apology, which you have drawn to our attention this morning, from the Evening Standard, but is it not the case that budget secrecy is now a principle more honoured in the breach than the observance? Will the Leader let the House let us know what action will be taken on behalf of the Government to ensure that this never happens again, particularly in respect of the inclusion of market-sensitive information in any embargo?

This morning, the Chancellor refused to say whether his mortgage support schemes would be open to those who wish to buy second homes up to the value of £600,000. As the Chancellor could not tell us, perhaps the Leader of the House could clear up the confusion: is it really the Government’s intention to subsidise the purchase of second homes up to the value of £600,000 while homelessness rates soar? Or will this be the first U-turn of the Budget?

The next Prime Minister’s questions will not now take place for a whole month, so the Prime Minister should have time to read all the Budget documents for himself. Close inspection will show him that the Office for Budget Responsibility has halved growth forecasts for this year and downgraded them for next; revealed that borrowing will be £245 billion higher than was thought in the spending review to pay for the costs of his Government’s failing economic plan; and shown that real wages will fall by 2.7% over the course of this Parliament. We have had three years of pain and not an inch of gain. The Chancellor claimed he was trying to

“light the fires of ambition”—[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 941.],

but it is his own reputation and the dreams of millions that are going up in smoke, and next week 3,000 millionaires will get a tax cut while the rest of us pay the price of this Government’s failure. This was a downgraded budget from a downgraded Chancellor.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for that, and I share her hope that those in the House service who look after us so well here in the House will get a bit of a rest while we are busy in our constituencies.

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

And eating Easter eggs!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the shadow Leader of the House’s desire for us to keep up Easter traditions, one of which, as I recall it, is a white rabbit. The shadow Chancellor is clearly fond of dressing up—he appears as Father Christmas over the Christmas season—so perhaps he could dress up as the white rabbit. It would be in keeping with his tradition of popping up everywhere but never being pinned down on anything in particular, just as the Leader of the Opposition found it intensely difficult yesterday to respond to the Budget and any measures in it. He seemed to be devoted to reading out a pre-prepared script about everything else.

The shadow Leader of the House asked specific questions about Cyprus. She will recall that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House on Monday and we are committed, as she knows, to ensuring that those we have sent to Cyprus as part of the armed services or the civil service are looked after. That is why the flight went there. Indeed, we are also ensuring that the UK benefits payable to UK nationals in Cyprus are protected likewise. Of course, in coming days, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend, we will continue to keep the House updated. We have no plans to seek Mr Speaker’s permission to recall the House. One must always consider that only when the circumstances would demand it, and we have no such plans.

The hon. Lady asked about the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and, as I set out, we expect consideration of Lords amendments to that Bill to be on Tuesday 16 April. In the course of the Budget debate, there will also be an opportunity to realise how we are supporting employee ownership, not least through tax measures that will relieve capital gains tax for those who want to sell their business interests to their employees as part of the promotion of employee ownership.

The hon. Lady asked about the circumstances of the Evening Standard’s pre-publication of material on the Budget and the House will have heard Mr Speaker’s statement. The House will know that I, like Members of the House, deplore the fact that contents of the Budget were published before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement to the House. Members will have seen the statement of apology made by the editor of the Evening Standard, as Mr Speaker set out. It has been a long-standing practice to provide information under embargo, but as the House will be aware my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked the permanent secretary at the Treasury to investigate the circumstances of the event in relation to the material that was briefed, to whom it was briefed and what led to the Evening Standard’s premature release of that information. The House will understand the importance that I attach to major announcements being made first to this House and I will ensure that the House is updated on that investigation.

The shadow Leader of the House made a number of points about the Budget and economic circumstances. The business of the House today, tomorrow and on Monday will enable them to be discussed. On Monday, there will be an opportunity to discuss housing and to see how this Government will give a tremendous boost to home buyers and those who seek to buy properties with relatively high loan-to-value mortgages.

I am looking forward to our discussing in the Budget debate the scrapping of the further extension that the previous Government had planned to fuel duty. Fuel will be 13p a litre less than it would have been under their escalator. We will also have the opportunity to debate the benefit to pubs of the reduction in beer duty instigated by a number of Members, including my hon. Friends, and resulting from the e-petition to this House that was debated on 1 November. Those representations led to that important measure from the Chancellor. We will also have the opportunity to discuss the following: that we have reduced the deficit by a third; that employment is up, with private sector employment up by 1.25 million; the tax cut by April 2014 for 24 million people through the personal allowance going up to £10,000, taking 2.7 million people out of tax altogether; the help for many hundreds of thousands of home buyers; and the help for every business through a cut in national insurance to promote jobs. It is a Budget for jobs and growth and it will be the business of this House for the next three days.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

What is the reaction of the Leader of the House to the proposals to change the chapel of St Mary Undercroft in this place to a multi-faith prayer room? There is already a multi-faith prayer room in Parliament and an Islamic prayer room in the Lords.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a multi-faith room on the estate at 7 Millbank which is available to those who work here. The question of a change of use of the chapel of St Mary Undercroft is not a matter for the Government. Any proposals would be subject to consideration by several stakeholders, including this House and the royal household, owing to the chapel’s status as a royal peculiar. The other place would have an interest as well. It raises complex issues on which I will not offer immediate answers, but I can tell my hon. Friend that under the provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that is being debated, no religious organisation will be forced to opt in to conducting same sex marriages, and the Church of England has thus far made it clear that it will not choose to opt in.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Transport Secretary recently visited Wolverhampton and, in an interview with the Express and Star, described Wolverhampton train station as “awful”. I agree, but will the Leader of the House ask the Transport Secretary what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask the Transport Secretary, as the hon. Lady asks. I know that Network Rail and the train companies are undertaking quite a programme of improvement. I can say that because I know that the awful circumstances at Cambridge station will benefit from a substantial programme of rebuilding very soon. I will seek a reply for the hon. Lady.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

May I seek the advice of my right hon. Friend in respect of the NHS competition regulations, which were laid before the House? The first version has not been revoked. As a result, the second version of the regulations, SI 500, as I understand it, even if it were successful, would not stop the implementation of the previously laid and defective competition regulations. I would be grateful for his advice on that.

[Mr Lansley]

If I am wrong about this I will correct it, but my understanding is that when the second draft of those regulations was laid, it included the revocation of the first draft.

[Andrew George]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Lansley]

I have read it. It does include that, so I know that to be the case. Since those regulations are subject to a negative resolution, they will come into force unless they are negatived. The original regulations will therefore not come into force, and the subsequent clarified regulations will.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we debate the subject that is being discussed in almost every television studio, newspaper and pub in the country—that is, Britain’s decision 10 years ago to join Bush’s war in Iraq? A timely request for such a debate was made by two Tories, a Green Member and a Labour Member, yet it has not been timetabled. Is it not of paramount importance that we discuss the consequences of our own decision in this House which, among other things, sent 179 British soldiers to their deaths?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member from—[Interruption]. The Scottish nationalists asked a similar question last week. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) will recall that a number of Members made an application for such a debate to the Backbench Business Committee a number of weeks ago. Such a debate has not been timetabled. I will reiterate what I said before: it is important to debate these issues, but we are aware of the prospect of a report from the Chilcot inquiry and the importance of debating those issues in the light of that report.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the value of house building to the UK economy? I have several high-profile house builders in my constituency, as well as two of the country’s leading brick manufacturers. I am sure they will all be delighted at the Government’s announcement yesterday in the Budget of the Help to Buy scheme—£3.5 billion of investment to help people get on to and move up the housing ladder.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and other Members will have realised how important the construction industry is to securing growth. Frankly, we all have many families in our constituencies who are looking for homes but do not have the opportunity to buy them. The number of households is growing, but we do not have the number of homes we need. We were left an appalling situation after autumn 2008, when new house building fell off a cliff. We need to build that up again. The measures set out in the Budget yesterday, which will be debated on Monday, will turbo-charge the housing construction sector, which is what we are all looking for.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On that very matter, if we do have that debate, may we have some clarification on the mortgage subsidy the Chancellor proposed in the Budget, because this morning on the “Today” programme he could not say whether or not it will be available to people buying second homes? Would it not be ironic if the Government, at the same time as they are imposing a bedroom tax—a “spare-room subsidy”, as they call it—brought in a second home subsidy for the most affluent?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not read page 39 of the Red Book, where he will find the answer to his question—[Interruption.] He just has to read it, which he clearly has not done. I remind the House that on Monday the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be here and Members will have an opportunity to focus specifically on housing issues.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

As a result of the necessary cuts to the Ministry of Defence budget, 80 MOD police officers are due to leave Wiltshire. In the light of the recent basing review, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from a Defence Minister on reviewing that decision because, with 4,000 soldiers returning to Wiltshire, clearly it would be appropriate to have sufficient MOD police to look after them?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the House will share my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the work of the MOD police. The MOD has concluded that there is scope for savings to be made in the policing of some defence establishments. The measures relating to that are subject to ongoing consultation with staff and trade unions. No final decisions have been made.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am sure the Leader of the House would like to note that today the Scottish Parliament will learn the date of Scotland’s historic independence referendum. Over 90% of MSPs voted against the bedroom tax but, like the poll tax, it will still be imposed in Scotland. If we have another debate and 100% of MSPs vote against the bedroom tax, can we have that pernicious, awful tax withdrawn from our nation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House will be interested to learn the date of the referendum in due course later today. We live in a United Kingdom, and some matters are devolved and some are reserved. The same principles apply in Scotland as apply anywhere else in this country. In circumstances in which we are paying £23 billion in housing benefit and need to make savings, we must have a view to fairness, and how can it have been fair that housing benefit was not available to subsidise spare rooms in the private rented sector but was available for that in the social rented sector?

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

In April the people of the United Kingdom will fulfil their commitment to give 0.7% of GNI to the developing world, which I think all Members of the House will welcome. At the same time, the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 will come into effect. May we have a statement, perhaps from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to explain how that will benefit those who donate to charities in all our constituencies?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I share with him, and with the House, the hope that that Act will give further support to charities. It is an essential part of how we support the charitable sector here and around the world. I am not entirely sure how we will mark it, but it will be a very important moment, because, despite the tough times we and others around the world are experiencing, we have demonstrated our generosity, and indeed our responsibility, to the poorest people right around the world by fulfilling, under the coalition Government, the long-held ambition of devoting 0.7% of our GNI to overseas development assistance.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), may we have a debate on the Chancellor’s policy announced yesterday on helping people to buy a home? On page 39 of the Red Book it specifically says that the scheme is

“open not only to first-time buyers but also to existing homeowners”.

As my hon. Friend said, how can a Government be taxing people in social housing for a spare bedroom but subsidising those who already own a home to purchase a new one?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very impressed that Opposition Members have made progress by actually finding page 39 and reading it. It says—[Interruption.] All I will say to the hon. Gentleman and to Labour Members is that they are asking for an opportunity to debate this issue, and it will be available in the Budget debate.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

West Yorkshire police recently lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal a case against Leeds United about who pays for policing on match days. This will lead to West Yorkshire police having to repay Leeds United £1 million. It will also lead to my constituents having to lose police officers so that they can move across to help to police Leeds United football matches because of a small element of hooligan supporters. Will the Leader of the House get the Home Secretary to come and make a statement about this so that we can find out what she is going to do to reverse this intolerable situation?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I will, if I may, make clear to the Home Secretary his interest in this matter. Of course, were he to be here for Home Office questions on Monday he might find that he attracts Mr Speaker’s eye.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Early-day motion 1177 refers to concerns about the contracts of parliamentary House staff.

[That this House draws attention to the discrepancies in proposed salary increases amongst staff working on the Parliamentary estate, ranging from one per cent for lower paid staff to an average of five per cent for senior level staff; expresses concern at these double standards; notes that lower paid staff appear to be paying the price for austerity measures, while senior level staff are not facing the same cutbacks; and calls for the House authorities to examine these pay rises in detail and ensure all levels are forced to bear the same levels of cuts.]

Having discussed this matter with some of the people involved, it seems that our hard-working Hansard staff and our messengers appear to be threatened with a substantial loss in their earnings. Is it not time that we had a debate in here about the principles of how we employ our staff, who have certainly served us well in the 21 years that I have been here, and seem to be under the threat of a cut to their earnings?

[Mr Lansley]

I have read the early-day motion. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, these are matters for the House of Commons Commission. In that respect, there are opportunities to ask questions of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who answers on behalf of the Commission. In this particular instance, I would say two things. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I know that it has always sought to pursue the principle that the House should be an exceptionally good employer, and we set out to do that. That does not mean, however, that arrangements for pay should not reflect the issues that govern public service generally, and, indeed, it should not inhibit us from being prepared to modernise pay systems in this House.

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

May I ask the Leader of the House to grant time for an early debate on the proposed reforms to the common agricultural policy? Broad political agreement is expected to be reached at EU level by the end of June. The key will be how these reforms are implemented and will impact on farmers in this country. They involve technical concepts such as who will be defined as the active farmer, how the moneys will be spent, and what will be the contribution from the UK Exchequer.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary and his colleagues are actively engaged in precisely the negotiations that she describes. Of course, as we all appreciate, this is happening against the backdrop of the success that the Prime Minister achieved in the EU budget negotiations, which is terrifically important. We do need further reform of the common agricultural policy, and that is what this Government have set out to achieve. In terms of a debate in this House, I suspect that in the course of this process the European Scrutiny Committee will have an opportunity to look at these proposals, and it is of course open to it to make a decision on whether to refer them to the House for debate.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In the light of news that the Mersey gateway, like the Forth road bridge improvements, might well be built with Chinese steel, may we have a debate in this House about procurement policy for major infrastructure projects?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

What we want to do is not only to secure best value in procurement, but to ensure that British manufacturers and companies are best placed to deliver it. Today offers an excellent opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to debate growth and, indeed, Michael Heseltine’s important review, with my right hon. Friends and others.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Last month, the all-party group on pharmacy, of which I am the vice-chairman, held an open meeting on the decriminalisation of pharmacists for dispensing errors. As my right hon. Friend will know, pharmacists can be sent to prison for that offence, but unfortunately it appears that general practitioners cannot. Could we have a debate so that we can try to clear up this anomaly and get the Government to announce the timetable for doing so?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I know has been of continuing concern to pharmacists for a number of years. I have been concerned to make progress on the issue and the Department of Health has established a programme board to examine the balance between medicines legislation and pharmacy professional regulation in order not only to deliver protection for the public, but to deal with an issue of great concern to pharmacists, and rightly so, because inadvertent errors could leave them vulnerable to criminal prosecution. I hope that that work will be taken forward and I will ask the Department to get back to my hon. Friend about the timetable.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House secure a statement from the Secretary of State for Justice on whether he will carry out a risk assessment of his transforming rehabilitation programme?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirement for proposals to be subject to impact assessments, which I imagine is what he meant to say, because risk assessments are internal examinations. When those proposals are introduced to the House, an impact assessment will accompany them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Moldova is not in the European Union and it is a centre for human trafficking. It is right next door to Romania, and hundreds of thousands of Moldovans, through grandparental rights, are now applying for and getting Romanian passports with the intent of immigrating to the United Kingdom from 1 January next year. Could we have an urgent statement from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister about what representations Her Majesty’s Government are making to the Romanian Government to plug this loophole in the EU’s external frontiers?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is relevant to an e-petition debate in which he may like to participate, if he is able to do so, on Monday 22 April in Westminster Hall. He will also be aware of the work taking place inside Government to ensure that, while we meet our obligations relating to free movement, we do not so in a way that leaves us open to abuse.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Could we have a debate on alcohol pricing and the cost of antisocial behaviour on our high streets?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me remind the House that the Home Secretary will answer questions on Monday. He could also discuss alcohol pricing in the Budget debate, especially in the light of the Chancellor’s decisions on alcohol duties, including the reduction in beer duty. I am sure that the House would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Following the Chancellor’s welcome help yesterday for the least well-off to keep more of their own money, could we have a debate on hospital parking charges, and especially on the decision by Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to levy up to £6 a day on users of the Sir Robert Peel hospital car park? The proposals were made without consultation, contrary to the trust’s previous assurances, and will hit the very people whom the Chancellor set out to help yesterday.

[Mr Lansley]

I know how important this issue can be for many constituents, particularly if they are frequent users of hospital services. A code of practice has been established through the NHS Confederation and that should ensure that those frequent users are able to access discounts and the like. I encourage my hon. Friend to talk to the Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust about that, while recognising that these are decisions for NHS organisations. As a Government we have not sought to impose a structure on hospitals. Indeed, we have not chosen to divert money that should be available to support patient care to the subsidising of car parking.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Several of my constituents who are small business owners came to see me on Saturday to tell me that the Clydesdale bank is refusing to renew their facilities, despite promises that it would do so. They are now on punitive interest rates of 29.9% APR and face the threat of losing their homes. May we have an urgent debate in the House on why the banks are telling us that they are doing all they can to support businesses and to ensure that people do not get thrown out of their homes, when in reality they are doing the opposite?

[Mr Lansley]

Many Members across the House share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the relationship between many small businesses and the banking system, but I bring him good news. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has made a written statement, which may be followed up in today’s debate, about the operation of the new business bank and the support that it will give to stronger lending to small businesses. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman has a further meeting with small businesses in his constituency, they will share with him their delight at the Budget measures, including the £2,000 per employer reduction in national insurance contributions.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s announcements yesterday on housing have been warmly welcomed by the construction industry, estate agents and the many people who are looking to get on the housing ladder across the UK. Indeed, I received an e-mail from a local estate agent, Mark Horsfall of Twenty Four Estates in Barrowford, while the Chancellor was still on his feet. I am aware that the schemes may require legislation, so will the Leader of the House clarify when we will be able to debate the specifics of those very welcome proposals?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals are very welcome. Many people find it difficult to see how they can get on the housing ladder as a first-time home buyer. We know that the whole housing market can be very responsive to first-time home buyer activity spreading through the marketplace. The Help to Buy scheme will provide dramatic help. Although we have the funding for lending scheme and low interest rates in this country, which have happened only because of the credibility that the Chancellor’s policy has given this country, those things are not translating into access to mortgages for those who, of necessity, are looking for high loan-to-value ratios. All of that will make a very big difference and it may be debated on Monday.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by a Minister on food prices? Families and older people in the Wirral are seeing the price of their shopping going up and up. They will have noticed that any gains that they make from income tax thresholds are being inflated away. Will the Leader of the House get the Government to explain what they are doing?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, the Budget debate affords an opportunity to debate precisely those issues. I hope that the hon. Lady will take that opportunity to express her appreciation of the fact that by April 2014, the increase in personal allowances will have taken 3,071 of her constituents out of income tax altogether.

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

After the positive news in yesterday’s Budget about the scrapping of the beer duty escalator and the other cuts in duty, I was contacted by my constituent Mr Simon Theakston, who runs the iconic Yorkshire brewing business of the same name. He said that the changes would be seen as a vote of confidence in the industry and trigger investment from it. May we have a debate about that great British institution, the pub, and its role in communities, especially in village life?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes; the House demonstrated its concern about that issue on 1 November last year, when it debated beer duty. It will no doubt do so again during the Budget debate and there will perhaps be further opportunities to debate the brewing industry and pubs, when the House will be able to share in the coalition Government’s recognition, through the Budget changes, of the importance of pubs not only as an industry but to local communities.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have raised this matter before, but Members of Parliament from Greater Manchester are desperately seeking a chance to debate the imminent privatisation of passenger transport ambulance services in the conurbation. Soon, those services will no longer be delivered by the NHS, but by Arriva buses as the Government’s agenda for the NHS starts to take shape in our constituencies. I have applied repeatedly for an Adjournment debate since the beginning of January, but unfortunately I have not been successful. Surely it is reasonable to try to scrutinise a decision of such magnitude.

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue with me previously, and if the Department of Health can add anything further by way of information, I will ensure that it is made available to him. He could, of course, seek an Adjournment debate on this matter, as it relates to his constituency and neighbouring constituencies. I remind him that we are talking about passenger transport services, not the emergency responses of ambulance trusts. There are instances across the country where passenger services are not necessarily provided by the ambulance service but work alongside it, which can work perfectly effectively.

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

Research has suggested that more than half of cigarettes smoked in Gillingham have avoided tax. Can we have an urgent debate on tackling illegal tobacco?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I reassure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and UK Border Force published their latest strategy to tackle tobacco smuggling in April 2011, building on success already achieved in tackling tobacco fraud. Since the launch of the first tobacco anti-fraud strategy more than a decade ago, the illicit market for cigarettes has reduced from 21% to 9%, and from 61% to 38% for hand-rolling tobacco.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Yesterday’s Budget was very good news for Wales and added more than £100 million to the Welsh Assembly budget— £161 million for capital investment. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an opportunity for the House to consider the impact on Wales of investment decisions in England by the UK Government? Cross-border investment is hugely important to my Montgomeryshire constituents as well as to the efficient operation of devolution.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I hope that opportunities will continue to manifest themselves for us to debate those important cross-border issues. Some decisions that have been made—for example, on the electrification of the rail line in south Wales to Cardiff and Swansea—are tremendously important for economic recovery in Wales. If the Welsh Assembly Government have any resources available, it might be an opportunity to reconsider what seems to be the completely misplaced priority of cutting the NHS budget by 8% in real terms in Wales, with all the damaging consequences illustrated in Wales itself.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Jason McCartney]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am suffering with a tickly cough, and I would like to thank your Clerk for providing me with a glass of water, for which I came to the Front Bench.

Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House join me in congratulating on behalf of other Yorkshire MPs the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury on agreeing to underwrite by up to £10 million the Tour de France coming to Yorkshire? Can we have a debate on the wonderful economic and social benefits that that global sporting event will bring to Yorkshire?

[Mr Lansley]

That was a question worth waiting for, Mr Speaker. When the Cabinet was in Leeds, we heard a presentation about the Tour de France grand départ and were tremendously impressed by what Yorkshire had done to secure that event for this country. From my point of view, since a subsequent stage will go through my constituency in Cambridgeshire, we are doubly grateful to Yorkshire for that. I do not know whether we will be able to have a debate soon, but we very much welcome my hon. Friend’s support, and that of his colleagues, for what will be a wonderful three days of cycling in 2014.

Parliamentary Standards Act

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the following offices of positions are specified for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, with effect from 1 April 2013—

(a) the Chair of a select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments), the Administration Committee, the Backbench Business Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Finance and Services Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Select Committee on Procedure, the Committee of Public Accounts, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Regulatory Reform Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and

(b) a member of the Panel of Chairs appointed under Standing Order No. 4 (Panel of Chairs), other than a member who is the Chair of a committee specified in sub-paragraph (a) or a member who is entitled to an additional salary by virtue of any provision of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

(2) If a Member already holds an office or position referred to in paragraph (1)(a), then any other office or position referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is not specified for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 in respect of any period for which that other post or position is held by that Member.

(3) Any office or position referred to in paragraph (1)(a) for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 is not specified for the purposes of that section in respect of any period in which it is held by a Member who is also entitled to an additional salary by virtue of any provision of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

(4) Any reference to any committee in paragraph (1)(a) shall, if the name of the committee is changed, be taken to be a reference to the committee by its new name.

This is essentially a technical motion to meet the requirements of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. It enables specified Select Committee Chairs and members of the Panel of Chairs to continue to be paid an additional salary when the first determination by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority of MPs’ salaries comes into effect on 1 April 2013, and when there are any future determinations thereafter, as set out in the Act.

As Members may recall, under section 4 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, IPSA was given responsibility for paying the salaries of Members of the House of Commons. Sections 4 and 4A give IPSA responsibility for determining the amount of Members’ salaries and provide that it may determine higher salaries to be payable to Members holding offices or positions that are specified in a resolution of the House of Commons.

Under the new arrangements from 1 April, the House retains responsibility for determining those offices or positions eligible for the additional salary, but does not, of course, set the level of this additional salary. The motion specifies those positions, but importantly, the House should recognise that it makes no changes to the list of positions already eligible under existing resolutions of the House. Members can see for themselves on the Order Paper the list that the House has agreed to previously. It ensures that the—

--- Later in debate ---

Proceedings resumed.

[Mr Lansley]

The motion ensures that the pay settlement that takes effect from 1 April 2013 will apply to the positions listed for the purposes of the payment of additional salaries. The first determination of salaries for Members by IPSA will take effect from 1 April 2013. That determination by IPSA provides for a 1% increase in the salary of Members in April 2013 and a further 1% increase in April 2014. IPSA further determined that the additional salary payable to specified holders will also receive a 1% increase. The motion will ensure that this increase is payable to the specified office holders to whom an additional salary is paid. It will also allow IPSA to make further determinations, without the need for any intervention of the House, although IPSA is required by statute to consult and then to publish its determination.

The motion also makes it clear that no Member may receive two additional salaries for any period of time, whether by virtue of holding two specified positions or because they are paid a ministerial or other salary by virtue of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

I hope that explains the purpose of the motion, which I commend to the House.