Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 13 March 2013 (Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting.

3. Remaining proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table.

4. Each part of the remaining proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It is severely curtailed, because even if there were no Divisions, were the clauses on Leveson to last their full three hours, less than 40 minutes would be left for all the other clauses, dealing with some very important issues, some of which would probably never be reached.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will note that it is a matter for hon. Members to determine to what extent they want to make progress on the next group of amendments, and the rate at which they make progress depends on the character of the debate. That is often true when we consider Report stages. The extent to which later groups of amendments can be considered depends on the time that Members choose to take in debating earlier groups. It may, of course, be that the time to consider amendments relating to press conduct will not occupy all the time available.

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

I hope that the Leader of the House will remember that I and others have suggested that he might look with colleagues at the very simple principle that when we use up some time for other business on a Report and Third Reading day, we have injury time to replace it, so that there is an automatic carry-over to give us the guaranteed time that we were expecting.

[Mr Lansley]

I do recall my right hon. Friend making that point previously. I simply say that it is an inflexible approach. It is our intention to assist the House in the way we structure programme motions, and that is precisely why this programme motion has been constructed around extending two hours beyond the moment of interruption. I emphasise that we are now four hours and 40 minutes away from the closure of the debate. If a normal Report stage falls on a Monday, it is not unusual for there to be two statements or an urgent question and a statement, which takes the House from 3.30 pm to about 5.30 pm, at which point we are four and a half hours away from the moment of interruption on that day, so I stress that we are not an unusual length of time away from the moment of interruption for a debate on Report.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Leader of the House is right in what he says about the time, but surely what is unusual and exceptional about this programme motion is the importance of the matters that we are debating. The Leveson-related amendments are some of the most important that we could be debating, given the interest out there among the public and in the House. That is the difference, and we should therefore allow sufficient time for them to be debated, as well as the other remaining important matters.

[Mr Lansley]

The programme motion gives sufficient time for debate on the amendments relating to exemplary costs and damages. On the wider issues relating to press conduct and the Leveson report, the House has had the opportunity for three hours of debate arising from the Standing Order No. 24 application made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What is exceptional today is the Standing Order No. 24 application being granted. On the rare occasions that that has occurred, the Leader of the House has always, in my recollection, changed the remaining timetable so that proper debate took place. I do not understand why that has not happened on this occasion.

[Mr Lansley]

The point today is that the Standing Order No. 24 application related to matters that were part of the planned debate on amendments on Report in the first three hours. In any case, if the House agrees it, the programme motion will take us two hours beyond the normal moment of interruption. I accept that as a consequence of the pressure on the time for debate today, some hon. Members may be disappointed if a particular amendment that they have sponsored or signed does not receive the amount of discussion that they had hoped.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

This has nothing whatever to do with personal disappointment. These are matters of some considerable importance; otherwise, they would not be in the Bill. The fact that we wish to debate amendments or new clauses—indeed, the amendments and new clauses have been selected—suggests that they are considered to be of some importance by people other than their individual proponents.

Another point that my right hon. Friend perhaps needs to address is that the emergency debate that we have just had surely cannot have been in his mind when the timetable motion was drafted and tabled. He did not know that Mr Speaker would grant the three-hour debate, so the three hours taken out of the debate—or, as he might say, put in the debate—cannot have been in the calculation. We need to be clear about the thinking behind the timetable motion.

[Mr Lansley]

I am quite clear about the thinking behind the timetable motion. We wanted to make sure that there was sufficient time to debate Leveson-related issues. Also, it will also not have escaped my hon. and learned Friend’s notice—it did not escape the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is no longer in his place—that we did not anticipate necessarily that the debate would start at 3.30 pm, not least because I anticipated that the Prime Minister would make a statement on the European Council. Thus, when we consider the overall time available, we find that we are not very far from where we anticipated we would be. My right hon. Friends and I understand that if we cannot have a full debate on all the issues to which the later groups of amendments relates, there will no doubt be future opportunities for us to do so.

Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and other right hon. and hon. Members. Its effect would be to restrict today’s debate to the clauses relating to press conduct and provide an additional third day for consideration on Report, with Third Reading to be scheduled for a future date. I will not trouble the House with questions of how we could fit further days into the diminishing time remaining before the Session concludes, but I would like to make it clear that, as Leader of the House, I have sought with colleagues to provide at least two days on Report for important Bills where necessary and possible. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my predecessor as Leader of the House, and I have done that for 14 Bills in this Parliament, which stands in stark contrast to the previous Administration’s record. Indeed, today’s consideration is in addition to what was originally set out in the programme motion the House agreed on Second Reading. It is wholly exceptional to move to three days on Report; that has been given to only two Bills in this Parliament, and only three between 2001-02 and 2009-10.

I reiterate that if we crack on we will have four and a half hours available for further consideration of the Bill on Report and on Third Reading. Given the widespread interest in the issues before us, I hope that the House will agree to the programme motion quickly so that we can proceed with the substantive business.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

Monday 18 March—I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council. This will be followed by the conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]. Colleagues will wish to be aware that the business is expected to go beyond the moment of interruption.

Tuesday 19 March—Proceedings on the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, followed by motion relating to section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

Wednesday 20 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 21 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 25 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

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

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 21 and 25 March will be:

Thursday 21 March—Debate relating to the post-2015 development agenda.

Monday 25 March—Debate relating to the e-petition on preventable cardiac deaths arising from sudden adult death syndrome.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for finally announcing the business for next week. I have been following this morning’s chaotic events largely on Twitter, and it is a deplorable state of affairs. It would be helpful to everyone in the House if the Government could get their act together and learn how to organise their business in a more timely fashion.

Ninety-nine days have passed since the publication of the Leveson report, and a decision must be made. Now is the time to act for the many victims of press intrusion whom the report identified. We wanted a cross-party agreement, and we are disappointed that this morning the Prime Minister pulled the plug on the all-party talks. Even at this late stage, we urge him to think again. When he launched the inquiry, he looked victims in the eye and told them that he would fight for them. It is a sad indictment that he now fights for the people who hurt them.

Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the Government will allow time for a debate and vote on any Leveson proposals in the Crime and Courts Bill on Monday? When can we expect to see the supplementary timetabling motion which was promised by Ministers yesterday, to facilitate the debate and the votes that must accompany it?

I am beginning to think that my prediction that the Government will perform a U-turn every 29 days is going off the rails. The last one arrived three days early, and this week we have seen two more—and that is before next week’s Budget. Despite the urgent question, we still have no idea what the Government’s policy on a minimum alcohol price of 45p actually is. Will the Leader of the House tell us? Perhaps he will also let us know his personal view.

The Government have amended the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in the other place to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which provides vital protection for rural communities. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the abolition will take £260 million out of rural workers’ pockets and transfer it directly to their employers. The Bill is due to complete its Lords stages on 20 March. Will the Leader of the House tell me when it will return to the House of Commons?

We were all startled by the vivid imagery from the Liberal Democrat conference last week. The party’s president said that his own members were

“like cockroaches after a nuclear war”.

The Deputy Prime Minister described his coalition partners as

“like a kind of broken shopping trolley.”

Mr. Speaker, I present you with our Government: a broken shopping trolley full of cockroaches, veering wildly to the right.

Over the last week, the bookies have been raking it in because an important leadership election has been taking place. The front-runners have been jockeying for position, factions have been forming, there has been whispering in the corridors, people have been excited to see who will emerge as their next leader—and that was just in the Vatican. Meanwhile, here at Westminster, the Prime Minister is searching for divine inspiration. The Home Secretary has openly staked her claim, only to be silenced by the Education Secretary, who harbours his own ambitions. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s Aussie spin doctor should turn his attention to the Cabinet, and stop harassing Tory Back Benchers about their tweeting habits.

The Budget is just under a week away. Everyone is wondering what the part-time Chancellor’s encore will be after last year’s omnishambles, and I have to say that the omens are not good. The Prime Minister has suffered an unprecedented ticking off from the Office for Budget Responsibility for obscuring the facts on cuts, the Business Secretary is openly campaigning for Labour’s plan B, and the Chancellor lost £1 billion in the 4G auction and has failed his own triple A test.

The Chancellor’s plan is not working. People are suffering while our economy flatlines, and he is busy handing out tax cuts to millionaires. Perhaps he should listen to the 81% of his own constituents who think that he should spend less time in the Tory bunker and more time in his day job. The Guardian quotes a senior Tory as saying:

“The Conservative party has two moods. Panic and complacency.”

Will the Leader of the House tell us which mood he thinks his party is in?

[Mr Lansley]

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

On press conduct and the implementation of the Leveson report, the hon. Lady will recall that yesterday the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), made it clear in response to the debate on the programme motion that if the talks conclude, either with or without agreement, we will bring forward a supplementary programme motion to ensure that issues relating to press conduct are debated on the second day of consideration of the Crime and Courts Bill. That is what we are doing.

The Prime Minister announced this morning that further all-party discussions have this morning concluded without agreement. For the benefit of the House I will read out what he has said:

“I believe that what we have on the table is a system that will deliver public confidence and justice for the victims. It’s a system that would introduce the toughest press regulation this country has seen and a system that will defend press freedom in our country.”

The Government will now publish the royal charter again so people can see how it would deliver the principles that Lord Justice Leveson set out. Through the consideration of the Crime and Courts Bill on Monday, the minimal legislative changes required to put in place a system of exemplary damages will be tabled. As the Prime Minister made clear this morning, other parties can also table amendments, although we hope, of course, that they will see that the minimal legislative changes supporting a royal charter will deliver what is required to balance a tough system of press regulation and the need for freedom of the press. The shadow Leader of the House asked me about the tabling of amendments and motions. As the House is not sitting tomorrow, they will have to be tabled today.

I hope my comments have given Members an indication of the shape of the debate. My purpose is to facilitate the debate of the House. As the Prime Minister made clear this morning, the debate on Monday should resolve this issue and I hope the way the debate is structured—we can discuss that through the usual channels—will facilitate the House reaching a conclusion. The hon. Lady asked about other Bills, including the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. I hope these steps will enable us not only to achieve the implementation of the Leveson report recommendations, but to enable other important legislation to be concluded in a timely fashion.

Now—[Interruption.] I think we can be quick on other things. On minimum alcohol pricing, the Minister of State at the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, has just responded to an urgent question, and my personal view is the same as his. [Interruption.] I agree with the Government, no problem.

The Government’s decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board is an important deregulatory measure. The minimum wage will remain in place.

The hon. Lady mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referring to Liberal Democrats as cockroaches. We can squash that right now. We all know that Liberal Democrats have a capacity to fly away, as their symbols demonstrate, but we will leave it at that.

The hon. Lady talked about next Wednesday’s Budget statement. I cannot pre-empt what the Chancellor will say, but there are a number of things the House recognises and the hon. Lady and her party ought to recognise: that we were left a dreadful financial mess; that we have cut the deficit by a quarter; that we have seen private sector employment rise by over 1 million; and, as was discussed when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills delivered his statement to the House, 1 million people are going into apprenticeships as part of our creating sustainable growth for the future. We are making benefits fairer and we are making work pay. We have taken 2.2 million people out of income tax all together as a consequence of the increase in personal allowances. All this, and so much more, means the Chancellor will be delivering the Budget statement against a background of a record of achievement thus far and can set out proposals that will enable us to secure deficit reduction and our growth prospects for the future.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the important steps this Government are taking to improve life for older people: not only reforms to the state pension but auto-enrolment and the pensions triple lock? All are such good news that we never get time to debate them on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point well. I confess that I cannot immediately identify when such a debate might be possible, but much can be discussed during the Budget debate. I noted, as many other Members will have done, remarks this morning from the House of Lords Committee underestimating what this Government have done to anticipate and create a more sustainable structure to support people in old age. We have made public sector pensions more affordable and sustainable, and auto-enrolment could give an additional 11 million people access to their own pensions in retirement. The draft Pensions Bill will make the state pension system simpler and more affordable, and I would never neglect to mention the many measures in the draft Care and Support Bill that will provide support for vulnerable and frail people in old age.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has pulled the plug on the all-party Leveson talks today. He now expects this House to implement his version of press regulation, which would have no teeth and would not be independent. That would be a gross betrayal of the victims and a craven surrender to the perpetrators. Should we not have a full statement from the Prime Minister or the Culture Secretary, so that Members know exactly what they are voting for on Monday?

[Mr Lansley]

Members will know the structure of the debate on Monday, and what is important is that, as was made clear yesterday and has been confirmed today, they will have the opportunity to have that debate. I took the trouble to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box, so that Members are aware of what is now planned.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. It is extremely regrettable that the all-party talks on Leveson have broken down, and extremely regrettable that the Prime Minister is no longer willing to take part in them. I am clear on behalf of my colleagues here—and, I think, the official Opposition and other parties—that we do not think a simple charter, without seeking to implement Leveson as recommended, will be at all sufficient. Will the Leader of the House elaborate on Monday’s business? Given that it is likely that other amendments will be tabled—they are actively being constructed at this moment—can he make sure there is sufficient time to debate not just a Conservative amendment but other amendments? That means we will not have a short day at all, because some of us are determined to get it right and not dishonour our pledge made after the Leveson report.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend will have been listening carefully to what I said in my statement. I freely acknowledge that we do not always satisfy everybody in terms of the time made available, but I did say in my statement that colleagues must expect business on Monday to go beyond the moment of interruption, and I fear that will have to be the case. That will allow a debate, and without dwelling on precisely how we achieve that, my and my colleagues’ purpose, through the usual channels, will be to ensure that this House can have the debate—including the votes—that will enable it to resolve the issue, I hope very positively, so that all of us who are concerned to ensure that the Leveson report is implemented in principle see that happen. The Prime Minister set out some very clear proposals that will enable that to happen. I do not suggest for one moment that we will vote on those and not on other amendments, if others are presented. But the House should be given that opportunity.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

May we have a full ministerial statement on the bedroom tax, which affects thousands of people in Telford? A number of them will be single people looking for one-bedroom accommodation. When I checked, two such properties were available on the social housing register, and only 175 have been available all year. How are those thousands of people supposed to downsize? This is about them paying more money.

[Mr Lansley]

The House and the hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State explain repeatedly that the spare room subsidy is about bringing fairness into the system. It comes in the context of a £23 billion housing benefit bill and circumstances where a large number of people in this country are living in overcrowded accommodation while many are receiving a subsidy in under-occupied property. Although the Labour party, over many years, was perfectly happy to see exactly the same principles applied to those in receipt of housing benefit in privately rented properties, Labour Members do not see that it is perfectly fair to carry that analogy forward into social housing.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Leveson is a hugely important issue. Will the Leader of the House clarify whether the supplementary programme motion has yet been laid, so that we can table amendments? Will he allow Monday’s debate to go until any hour—I urge him to do so—as that would solve the problem of people worrying about having time to scrutinise it?

[Mr Lansley]

I make just two points to my hon. Friend. As I hope I made clear, motions and amendments relating to proceedings on the Crime and Courts Bill on Monday need to be tabled today, and they will be laid in due course today. In effect, he is seeking to have no programme motion, with the time to be “on debate”, but I am afraid that I cannot offer that. It is important that the Bill is protected, although we will ensure that time is provided for the debate on press conduct matters.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On 1 November 2012, the House debated air passenger duty, unanimously agreeing a motion calling for a “comprehensive” review of that punitive tax: the UK’s is the highest of any country in Europe and for many it is having devastating consequences for tourism, families going on holiday and so on. What progress has been made in response to the motion passed unanimously in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I can just tell the right hon. Gentleman that these matters are under active consideration by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and others in relation to the Budget statement.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In February 2011, the Department of Health announced that it would introduce a statutory register of herbalists by the end of 2012. It is now 2013 and the Department has not even published any draft legislation. May we have a statement from the appropriate Health Minister about the interference from the European Commission in preventing Her Majesty’s Government from introducing a new law of this land?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will know, I am aware of this issue, having been the responsible Secretary of State when that written ministerial statement was made. I do know—this was true before I moved from the Department of Health last September—that we were encountering complex issues relating to the preparation of this legislation. The interface with EU legislation is one such issue, but it is not the only one. We need to get the legislation right, and I know that my colleagues in the Department are working on it and will, of course, make an announcement as soon as they can.

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

Now that we can all see that the Prime Minister is in the pocket of Murdoch, may we have the Prime Minister making a statement explaining to the families, including the Dowlers, why he has gone back on the pledges he made?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not accept for a minute what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that what the Prime Minister has described this morning as the proposals that will be brought forward for discussion in our proceedings on the Crime and Courts Bill next Monday is the toughest structure of press regulation this country has seen. I think it is entirely consistent with the Leveson principles, not least in the link with the Crime and Courts Bill and the introduction of a system of exemplary damages.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend might recall my raising at Prime Minister’s questions in November 2010 the situation in Parliament square, which I described as

“a no-go area surrounded by a campsite”.—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 257.]

Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s response was that he wanted it “sorted out” as quickly as possible. Will the Leader of the House update the House on the situation and give us some indication of the costs of policing the demonstration?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the House will, like me, be grateful to my hon. Friend for his assiduous work in raising this issue. Many Members of this House will take pleasure in celebrating the fact that Parliament square has now been returned to a state in which its splendour and the architectural setting surrounding it can be enjoyed by residents, workers and our many visitors to Westminster. He asked me about the cost to the taxpayer, but I regret to say that I do not know. However, I will draw his question, which he rightly raises, to the attention of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to see whether it might be able to respond to him about that cost, a matter for which it has been responsible.

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

May I reiterate the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) about the need for a clear statement on the bedroom tax policy? After all the U-turns, there still seems to be confusion about exactly how it is going to work. With 4,700 households affected in Hull and only 73 one and two-bedroom properties available, the Government need to be clear about how this policy is going to be implemented in practice.

[Mr Lansley]

Of course the hon. Lady can reiterate the point, but I will not detain the House by repeating the answer. I will simply say that the clarification that she and other hon. Members actively sought was provided in the written ministerial statement made by colleagues earlier this week.

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

More than 20,000 people in my constituency—nearly a quarter of the population—are pensioners. Please may we have a debate about how our country will fund the pensions of the future, both state and private, looking particularly at what help can be provided to help people make provision for their own futures so that they have a secure and dignified retirement?

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important point. The Budget may well afford an opportunity for some wide-ranging debates, of which pensions could be one part. The measures on auto-enrolment will support people in retirement. The draft Pensions Bill will give people a much simpler and more predictable basis on which to judge the state’s provision for retirement and what they may need to maintain the standard of living they are looking for. Overall, after years of failed experiments with stakeholder and other pensions, we are finally getting something that people can understand so that they can identify how they can meet their needs in old age.

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

May we have an urgent debate on the one thing that blighted the Olympic effort of which we are all very proud? That one thing was the behaviour of G4S. We now understand that it has done a deal with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games that is very generous, given its failure to deliver on its contract. At the same time, G4S is refusing to pay what is owed to the hard-working, smaller sub-contractors who worked on the Olympic site. This is a scandal; it will not go away, and G4S must know that Members of this House will not let the public forget it.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman has put that point on the record. He will know that the Home Affairs Select Committee have been pursuing this issue. I cannot promise him an urgent debate on this matter, but if he were in the House and caught the Speaker’s eye, Home Office questions on Monday 25 March might present a suitable opportunity for him to reiterate his point.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Welfare benefits exist to provide a safety net for people who are not able to work, or the weak and vulnerable, and also a hand-up for people seeking return to work. May we have a statement or a debate in Government time on ensuring that welfare benefits are contribution-based so that those people who paid in through national insurance and taxation receive those benefits, and those who have not paid in are assessed on their personal need?

[Mr Lansley]

Only a few weeks ago we were celebrating the anniversary of the Beveridge report, and it is important to recognise that the contributory principle was at the heart of that report. I cannot immediately offer my hon. Friend a debate. I am resting at the moment on the wide-ranging character of the Budget debates to allow many such issues to be raised. The House will recognise the importance of the benefit system being fair. It is important to distinguish between the contributory principle for many and the circumstances of those who are so vulnerable and dependent that we are talking about something that does not rely on contributions but is based on need.

In the reforms that we are putting through now, we are focusing on making work pay and ensuring that those who can work do work, but also on making sure that resources are focused, and on increasing resources for those who are most in need through disability.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

So that we can understand the context of the debate on Leveson on Monday, can the Leader of the House tell us when the Prime Minister informed the Deputy Prime Minister that he was unilaterally collapsing the talks?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not present at the discussions this morning between the leaders of the three parties, but I imagine that as the Prime Minister made a statement at the conclusion of those talks, it that must have been communicated in those talks.

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

Medway council in my constituency proposes to invest half of its unallocated reserve in a new development fund to support future regeneration and development. Will the Leader of the House consider granting a debate on how local authorities can use their reserves to support local communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I welcome what Medway council is proposing. I know that my hon. Friend will share my support for what my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government are doing through their “50 ways to save” publication, which shows how councils can make significant savings. Many councils have reserves, quite prudently, and how they use those reserves, including for investment purposes or, in the case of my council, to work together with others to create an investment bank to support business projects in the county, can show initiative and enterprise.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Following my point of order yesterday on the online petition for the Shrewsbury 24, will the Leader of the House make a statement on the Government’s online petition system? Specifically, will he ensure that the many thousands of people who have allegedly failed to fill out the online form properly are contacted electronically and notified that their signatures have not been registered?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I wrote to him yesterday following his point of order, although I entirely understand that he might not have received the letter yet. I will not detain the House with all that is in that letter, but I hope that it answers the questions he quite properly raised yesterday and today. If it does not, I would be glad to try to clarify further. This has demonstrated to me that there is no problem as such with the online petition system; there are just difficulties in some cases with duplications, addresses and things of that kind.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituent Harald Hamley has recently contacted me to express his support for the Defamation Bill. I am sure that many across the country are anxious to see it become law to reduce the possibility of vexatious libel claims and to uphold freedom of expression. When does the Leader of the House expect the Defamation Bill to return to this House for further consideration?

[Mr Lansley]

The answer to my hon. Friend is that I will make a statement on the further proceedings on the Defamation Bill in due course. It might help him and Mr Hamley if I say that as the Prime Minister has made perfectly clear this morning, we will resolve issues relating to the implementation of Leveson principles in our debate on Monday. As a consequence, I hope it will be possible for us to proceed with other legislation, including the Defamation Bill, in a timely way.

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

Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate on the full scale of the collapse in living standards affecting our constituents which has been presided over by this Government? Has he seen the new research by Landman Economics for the TUC, published yesterday, which finds that the cumulative impact of Government policy on wages, tax and benefits is a drop in Scottish household income of £28.63 a week, or £1,488 a year? Is that not a truly dreadful record for this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

Mr Speaker, you would imagine when listening to the hon. Gentleman that May 2010 was year zero and that nothing happened beforehand. At the heart of all this is the 6.2% reduction in the gross domestic product of this country as a consequence of the bust under a Government who said that there would be no boom and bust. It was the biggest bust we have ever seen and we were left with the biggest deficit we had ever seen. It is not possible to pay down debt, to cut the deficit and to cut consumer debt without having a negative impact on people’s living standards.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Late on Monday night and in the early hours of Tuesday morning, hundreds of motorists were stranded by the freezing weather conditions on the A23 and M23 in west Sussex. I pay tribute to Sussex police and many of my constituents, who came to the assistance of those who were stranded. May we have a statement from the Transport Secretary about Highways Agency winter preparedness?

[Mr Lansley]

I echo my hon. Friend’s praise for the emergency services and for his constituents—I was taken with the reports that the Red Cross, for example, was reaching out to people and giving them support. I know that they worked together around the clock in partnership with the Highways Agency and I, too, pay tribute to them. The extreme weather, which was probably experienced to a greater extent in much of northern Europe, had a heavy impact on the south of this country—

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

And Scotland.

[Mr Lansley]

And, indeed, on other parts of the country. I note the request for a statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I do not anticipate a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the moment, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we constantly learn from what happens and apply those lessons in ensuring that we minimise disruption to the public and business during severe weather.

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

David Green, director of Civitas, said today:

“Labour is showing the way to the present Government, which has shown no imagination in tackling the problems facing SMEs and has ignored too many good ideas.”

Given the failure of the Government’s Project Merlin and other such programmes, may we have a debate on the only growth plan—that is, Labour’s growth plan—including a British investment bank, regionalised banking and business lending?

[Mr Lansley]

I know David Green, of course, and I suspect that he would not subscribe to the Labour party’s view of how these things should be tackled. None the less, we are determined to support small and medium-sized enterprises. We will push to ensure that small businesses can get access to the finance they need, as we did through Project Merlin, and we are supporting that through the funding for lending scheme and the finance guarantees. The tax measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put in place, including an exceptional tenfold increase in investment allowances, will support that. If the hon. Gentleman were at the conference being held by my old friends at the British Chambers of Commerce over the road today—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be there—he would hear their ideas. I know that many of them support what the Government are doing, including not only the deficit reduction but our infrastructure support and the business bank being set up by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary.

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

I know that my right hon. Friend has enjoyed many visits to the welcoming, historic and vibrant city of Chester. May we have a debate that will allow us to champion Chester as a stand-out candidate for city of culture in 2017?

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend be the first in this House to make a bid in business questions for city of culture status on behalf of his constituents. He is right to say that I have enjoyed visits to Chester many times and I look forward to more. Chester has a fantastic history and a vibrant artistic and cultural life, both now and in the future. I look forward to those visits, and perhaps we will share some of that entertainment when we are there.

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

The Leader of the House might not be aware that next Tuesday marks the bicentenary of the birth of Dr David Livingstone, who was born in Blantyre in my constituency. Members will be aware of his work in Africa and he is, of course, buried in Westminster Abbey. There will be a series of events, including in Blantyre, culminating in a service in Westminster Abbey next week that we hope the President of Malawi, Joyce Banda, will attend. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development to update the House on the progress towards reintroducing foreign direct aid to Malawi to help in the progress that President Banda hopes to achieve in that country?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to draw attention to that important anniversary and to the remarkable contribution of Dr David Livingstone as an explorer and someone who, as a consequence of that, was an inspiration to many in this country and beyond. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I am pretty sure she will be meeting the President of Malawi in the course of her visit, and I will draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the House so that she can incorporate them in that discussion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

For the penultimate question, I call Mr Docherty.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Further to the points raised by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), will the Leader of the House now confirm for the record that adequate time will be provided on Monday to debate not only the Prime Minister’s proposals but those of the Opposition?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that what I said was clear and helpful to the House. It is our intention to secure adequate time and to do so without prejudice to the discussion of other very important matters on the second day of the Crime and Courts Bill. That will necessitate the House sitting beyond the moment of interruption on Monday. I do not know precisely what other amendments there may be in relation to press conduct or the Crime and Courts Bill, but I know that we will work with the Chair and through the usual channels to ensure that the House is able to have a full and decisive debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Last but certainly not least, I call Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely we will have a debate to mark the 10th anniversary of the invasion and the war in Iraq. Iraq remains our most damaging and appalling foreign policy adventure ever, with more than 100,000 dead and the region destabilised. I was in the House with the right hon. Gentleman when we listened to the nonsense and the lies from the Labour Government on the case for war. Surely we should revisit that next week.

[Mr Lansley]

I was in the House, as the hon. Gentleman recalls, at the time of the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq—[Interruption.]—and did not vote for it. The shadow Leader of the House is wrong in her intervention from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be aware that a number of hon. Members have sought such a debate from the Backbench Business Committee. From the Government’s point of view, that is a matter for the Committee, but we are only too aware of the prospect of the Chilcot review coming forward at some point, and the importance of being able to debate and understand all the circumstances leading up to that decision in the light of the Chilcot review when it is published.

Points of Order

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It may be helpful for the Leader of the House to give us an answer to that question.

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

It is just over four and a half hours until the close of business. We will strive to ensure that the supplementary programme motion is laid, with time thereafter for Members to seek to amend it, should they choose to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It may be helpful to the House to know that manuscript amendments are acceptable in an emergency, if need be.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 7th 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 is as follows:

Monday 11 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.

Tuesday 12 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on tax fairness, followed by a debate on apprenticeships.

Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Wednesday 13 March—Remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (day 1).

Thursday 14 March—Launch of a report from the Justice Select Committee on youth justice, followed by debate on a motion relating to accountability and transparency in the NHS. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 18 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 19 March—Proceedings on a Bill.

Wednesday 20 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 21 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 14 March will be:

Thursday 14 March—Debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee report on the FCO’s human rights work in 2011, followed by general debate relating to Commonwealth day.

The House will also be aware that this morning I made a written statement announcing that Her Majesty the Queen will open a new Session of this Parliament on Wednesday 8 May 2013.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and the date of the Queen’s Speech.

Tomorrow is international women’s day. To celebrate, the Government propose to remove the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s general equality duty from the statute book, having already slashed 70% of its funding. The Government have undermined the EHRC to such an extent that the United Nations has warned that it may lose its current A-list status as an independent body. It was therefore fitting that on Monday the other place blocked that attack on the commission’s powers to progress fairness. No wonder that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) suggested in The Sun on Tuesday that her own Front Bench needed equality training. Will the Leader of the House confirm when we will see the amended Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill back in this place?

I think I have finally managed to discover something reliable about the Government: the regularity of their U-turns. On 14 February, I observed that with this Government we have a U-turn every 29 days. Following the Education Secretary’s embarrassing climbdown on GCSEs, I predicted that the next one was due to arrive on 8 March—a non-sitting Friday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

As I said, I predicted that the next U-turn was due on 8 March—a non-sitting Friday. Therefore, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my request that this U-turn be brought forward to a sitting day by agreeing to Labour’s urgent question on the NHS competition regulations, which the Government withdrew ignominiously on Tuesday? It may have arrived like clockwork, but that U-turn took a quarter of a million names on a petition, thousands of doctors protesting and outrage across the House before the Government saw sense and realised that the British public will not tolerate our NHS being privatised.

The Leader of the House may recall that he told me last week that I was “not right” to say that the NHS competition regulations were a direct contradiction to the reassurances he gave during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Yet only yesterday, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported that the regulations are defective for precisely that reason. Will he now concede that he was wrong? Will he tell me when we can expect to see a new version of the regulations, and can we have them published in draft first, to avoid even more chaos? I am setting my clock for the next 29 days, but I make a plea to the Government: if I can predict their U-turns, then surely so can they. Could they, perhaps, just think through their policies a bit more before they announce them?

Last week, I asked the Leader of the House to ensure that the Commons Committee stage of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill will not be completed before the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards has even published its second report. This week, we learned that the Government intend to railroad the Bill through the Commons Committee stage by 18 April, well before the second report is expected to be published. How can the Leader of the House seriously expect MPs to scrutinise a Bill that is still only half-written? Will he stand up for the rights of this House and delay the Committee stage until after the Banking Commission has reported?

I am glad to see that our downgraded Chancellor has got his priorities right: he spent the week in Europe defending bankers’ bonuses. He gathered his allies around him ready for the fight and ended up in a minority of one. No one seems to respect the Chancellor anymore. Yesterday, the Business Secretary made a pre-emptive strike on the Prime Minister’s big economy speech by agreeing with the Opposition that we need a plan B, and the Governor of the Bank of England has accused the Chancellor of holding back the economy by not splitting up RBS. Most damningly, however, he has lost the respect of the British public, who see him ignoring the suffering of hard-working families, while he signs off six-figure tax cuts to 30,000 millionaires. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to start listening?

While the Chancellor is acting as a shop steward for the rich, another union is growing in strength: the national union of Ministers, united in their determination to dump further cuts to their Departments somewhere else. The Defence Secretary seems to have emerged as the new Arthur Scargill; and, from reports of the slap-down of the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is emerging as the new Margaret Thatcher. Could the Leader of the House tell us whether the union is confident enough in its numbers to win a strike ballot? No wonder the Prime Minister has arranged to take a 28-day comfort break before he has to answer questions in the aftermath of the Budget statement.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response to the business statement.

I share the hon. Lady’s wish to mark international women’s day tomorrow. In that respect, I hope it is helpful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will make an important statement immediately following business questions. I am sure the hon. Lady and the House will also welcome this morning’s written ministerial statement by the Home Secretary informing the House that the violence against women and girls action plan will be published tomorrow, on international women’s day. That will enable us to underpin further the strategy we set out two and a half years ago, showing the progress we have made and demonstrating our ongoing commitment to ending violence against women and girls, which was also marked by the debates agreed by the Backbench Business Committee in the Chamber recently.

The shadow Leader of the House asked when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill would return here from another place. That depends on when those in another place finish their consideration. To my knowledge they have not yet done so, but we will see that in due course.

I do not believe that the competition regulations as originally presented to this House were in any sense in conflict with the commitments given by Ministers. What is clear, however, is that those regulations are capable of being misunderstood and misrepresented—particularly the latter by the Opposition. In that respect, it is simpler and better to illustrate clearly two simple facts in the regulations. First, clinical commissioning groups have a duty, which overrides all other considerations, to secure the needs of their patients and the quality of services to their patients and to make choice available to them. Secondly, contrary to the situation under the last Government, in their “Principles and rules for co-operation and competition”, procurement should be conducted with a view to securing integrated services for patients. To that extent, what we are doing is based on the principles set out in early 2010 under the last Government, but we are enabling patients to be more confident that they will get integrated services responding to their needs with clinical leadership. That seems absolutely fine to me.

The hon. Lady asked about bankers’ bonuses and all that. We have to be clear about this. The Opposition might not think it is important now, but in the past the Labour Government used to rely almost entirely on the proceeds of financial services in the City to fund all their expenditure. Now the Opposition seem to have ignored the fact that, notwithstanding that, we need a competitive financial services industry in this country. Labour seems to have ignored the fact that it did nothing about bankers’ bonuses, which were four times as great under the last Government than they are under this Government. The Opposition seem to have ignored the fact that what the European Parliament is proposing could have perverse results, leading to higher salaries rather than bonuses, adding to companies’ fixed costs and reducing both their capacity to claw back bonuses if there is poor performance and the flexibility that brings. This is not a debate in principle about whether bankers should have bonuses or about the level—we are dealing with that. The issue is whether they are structured in a way that allows poor performance to be penalised without adding to the problems of the industry’s competitiveness in Europe.

The hon. Lady talked about U-turns. On a day when the Labour party is trying to contrive some kind of U-turn on its immigration policy, that was a bit of an own goal. I have not heard the shadow Leader of the House get up and apologise for the fact that the last Government simply lost control and ended up with a net migration figure of 250,000 a year. The coalition Government set themselves the task of bringing that net number down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, and the figures published last week demonstrate that net migration has fallen by a third in the past two and a half years. That shows that, in this respect as in so many others, the coalition Government are delivering on their promises.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

The A14 links my constituency with that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Will he allow a debate in Government time on road tolling, in that area but also more widely?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I share a close interest in this matter, and I declare a constituency interest. I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend at the Department for Transport. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I know that the Government will take the opportunity to discuss this matter with the House ere long.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate, or at least a statement, on the marine conservation zones? Given that £8.8 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on consultation, and 127 such zones have been proposed, could the Leader of the House find out when all 127 of them will be designated?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady was no doubt in the Chamber for questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That subject might have been raised in the course of those questions, but I hope she will forgive me for not being here at the time, so I do not know whether it was. If it was not, and if she particularly wishes to pursue the matter, may I suggest that she seeks an Adjournment debate in order to do so?

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

You were incredibly kind to try to accommodate everybody in DEFRA questions, Mr Speaker. In the light of recent events, including the ash tree disease, chalara, and all that has happened over food adulteration, will the Leader of the House see fit to review the time allocated to questions to the Church Commissioners and, especially, to questions to DEFRA, so that we can go back to having the full hour for DEFRA questions that we once enjoyed?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. These matters are discussed through the usual channels and determined by the House collectively. I will of course take the opportunity to discuss with colleagues whether there is a case for any change.

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

May we have a debate on the millionaires’ tax cut, and can it be led by the Prime Minister so that he can clarify whether he will benefit directly from the cut?

[Mr Lansley]

The Opposition have decided to debate tax fairness next week, so the hon. Gentleman might like to contribute to that debate. Government Members will also be able to contribute to it, and to highlight the fact that somebody on the minimum wage who is working a full week will have seen their income tax halved under this Government as a result of the increase in the personal allowance.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Today is world book day, and children up and down the country are going to school dressed as their favourite characters. I have joined in by dressing as Andrew Fraser, the Social Democratic party MP for Edinburgh Carlton in Jeffrey Archer’s book, “First Among Equals”, who ends up in a coalition Government in this very House. May we have a statement from the Department for Education on what it is doing to support school libraries, to ensure that such outlandish and far-fetched works of fiction are available to all?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that I am not alone in having found the school library my favourite place to be when I was at school. My hon. Friend might not realise that I, too, am in costume. I am taking the part of the Chief Whip—with apologies to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury—in my good friend Michael Dobbs’ book “House of Cards”. I am dressed as such.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May we please have an urgent debate on the plight of Shaker Aamer, who remains the last British resident incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay? He is still there after 11 years. We have heard sympathetic statements from the Foreign Secretary, and the US and the UK are both saying that he has been cleared for release. We need to know why we do not seem to have enough influence to get this man back. He has never been charged with any crime, and he has been there for 11 years.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the hon. Lady is as aware as many others in the House are of the representations that Her Majesty’s Government have been making about those in Guantanamo Bay. I will of course ask my colleagues in the Foreign Office to respond directly to her about the issue she has raised, and she may like to raise it further at Foreign Office questions.

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

Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in Government time on the plight of the Tamil people at the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka and the innocent women and children who were murdered and lost their lives?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern and his repeated efforts to support the Tamils who have suffered in the way he describes. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I will draw what he said to the attention of my ministerial colleagues and get them to respond directly to him.

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

In a written question on 20 December 2011, I asked the Department for Work and Pensions about the number of people who had died while waiting for an appeal on their work capability assessments and received an answer that up until October 2011 there were 30. I asked the same question on 27 June last year and was told that up to the end of April 2012 there were 32. Last week, I received an answer from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), to the same question, worded in the same way, but with the period extended until the end of 2012, and was told that the information was not available. Those answers cannot all be correct. Given either that the earlier ones were inaccurate or that the later one was evasive, may we have an urgent statement from that Minister on the veracity of his answers to written questions?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment in detail on that without notice, but I will of course talk to colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to see whether we can establish the reasons behind the different answers in respect of different periods.

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

My right hon. Friend mentioned migration and I congratulate the Government on reducing net migration by a third. May we have a statement on how local education authorities can authenticate requests by parents from other EU countries for school places for their children? I understand that Bournemouth borough council—no different from other councils—has no requirement or indeed resource to check whether those parents are working legitimately in the UK. The system is subject to abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that many hon. Members feel we should take an early opportunity to report on. I know that my colleagues are working hard on a range of issues about access to benefits and services. That work is ongoing and will be reported to the House in due course. I will make sure that my hon. Friend is made aware of any response to the particular issue he raises.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May we have a statement or debate in Government time in the near future on the uptake of benefits, particularly among senior citizens whose poverty levels run well over 15% higher in some regions? Senior citizens in Northern Ireland are missing out on up to £1 million a week by not taking up benefits, so more needs to be done to encourage take-up.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to raise that matter with Work and Pensions Ministers on Monday. If I may say so, this Government have worked hard to try to secure that. I am aware that one of the benefits—if I can be forgiven the pun—of universal credit is that it will establish a more secure basis to give people access to the benefits to which they are entitled.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

This week, we had the fantastic news that Jaguar Land Rover is going to invest a further £150 million, creating an extra 700 jobs at the engine plant that the company is building in my South Staffordshire constituency. May we have a debate on how we can continue to build on the success of the automotive industry, which is bringing such benefits not just to the west midlands but to the whole UK economy?

[Mr Lansley]

It was encouraging news to hear about the 10% increase in new car sales over the course of the earliest part of this year in comparison with the previous year. What is also tremendously encouraging about Jaguar Land Rover is its dramatic success in international markets and exports. The fact that that has been reflected in the investment in the engine plant near Wolverhampton which my hon. Friend mentioned is something that is greatly supported right across the House.

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

May we have a statement from the Government about when they will sign the maritime labour convention? Enough countries signed last August to make it international law this August, and the UK Chamber of Shipping and others are warning that our failure to do so would seriously disadvantage British shipping internationally. The Government support the measure and led the negotiations on it at the International Maritime Organisation, but for some reason it is mired in bureaucratic difficulty between Departments. I should be very grateful if the Leader of the House would look into the matter, and tell us whether we can have a statement.

[Mr Lansley]

I know of the support that the Government have given to the negotiations. I hope that one of my roles can involve entering the innards of that bureaucracy to try to ensure that the process works more smoothly and effectively. I will of course inquire of my colleagues to see what we can do to help the hon. Gentleman, and to succeed in the way that he describes.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the uncontrolled immigration that was allowed by the last Government and, in particular, on the effect that it has had in reducing the wages of the lower paid? This is a serious issue, given people’s current problems with the cost of living, and it needs to be looked into urgently.

[Mr Lansley]

In the last quarter, there has been a large rise in employment among UK nationals and a substantially smaller growth in employment among non-UK nationals. While we must ensure that those who come here to work are not subject to abuse in the sense of being paid less than the minimum wage or experiencing other poor conditions, I think we can feel increasingly confident that we are enabling more people in this country who are seeking jobs to acquire them.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate, or at least a statement, on the current plight of those who pay electricity bills? We have heard that the big six are raising their prices again, and now we hear that they are also making excessive profits. Is it not time that we did something about that?

[Mr Lansley]

The Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage and will return to the Floor of the House in due course, when it will become clear to the hon. Gentleman that—as we have discussed previously—the Government are taking the power to require that consumers are given access to the lowest tariffs available. That, along with the electricity market reform which is encapsulated in the Bill, is a tremendous step forward.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of today’s ruling in the High Court about the children’s heart unit at Leeds general infirmary. I am sure that he would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who have campaigned so vigorously on the issue, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), whose campaigning has been outstanding. Will he also ensure that a Minister comes to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the implications of the ruling, and about how the Government intend to proceed from now on?

[Mr Lansley]

I pay tribute to Members who, as my hon. Friend has said, have been assiduous in supporting their constituents and expressing their concerns. Those concerns are understandable, but let me reiterate that—as I think has been widely acknowledged—it is necessary to reduce the number of units responsible for children’s heart surgery in order deliver sustainable, secure, high-quality care for those children in the future.

It is clear from this morning’s decision that, while the judge has determined that the application for judicial review must succeed, what that means in terms of an order relating to the process itself is for future determination. I think it best for me to wait and see what the judge says in relation to the process before pressing my colleagues to make any kind of statement about how the joint committee of primary care trusts might proceed.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Whatever urgent debates the Leader of the House wants to arrange for next week, I must tell him that I may not be present, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has cancelled my travel card on the basis that I failed to submit my January conciliation form. It was submitted—I know that, because according to the online system it is “awaiting validation”, so it is clear that someone in IPSA has seen the form and typed those words—but IPSA has cancelled the card nevertheless.

It is unacceptable when this terminally abominable, incompetent organisation fails to pay the simplest expenses, but surely, when it starts to interfere with MPs’ ability to come to the House and return to their constituencies, that is something about which the Leader of the House and every Member should be concerned.

[Mr Speaker]

I understood what the hon. Gentleman said. I think he is seeking a statement or debate on the matter. [Interruption.] I know he wants his card back, but that does not of itself render his remarks orderly. They will be rendered orderly if there is a request for a debate and I am sure there was such a request; I probably just did not hear it.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure we all want to enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s presence here next week. To that effect, I will draw directly to the attention of IPSA the points he has made and the cautious and modest way in which he expressed himself. I think there are other Members across the House who have found themselves in similar circumstances and who have some sympathy with him.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I rise somewhat nervously to draw attention to a widespread concern about the conduct of the Government’s business. I am sure the Leader of the House would join me in congratulating the Backbench Business Committee on providing time to debate an aspect of the Francis report, but when are we going to have a full day’s debate in Government time on the Francis report? The Leveson inquiry gave rise to just such a debate in Government time. Surely our relations with the press are less important than what has happened at Mid Staffordshire hospital and its implications for the health service as a whole. We would not want the House of Commons to give the wrong impression about what we think is important.

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure I agree with my hon. Friend that the debate the Backbench Business Committee has scheduled for Thursday of next week is on one aspect of the Francis inquiry report. I think it is about accountability and transparency in the national health service. He will have seen on the Order Paper the nature of the motion presented. I do not think it constrains debate at all, and it is perfectly appropriate for us to proceed on the basis of the House considering this matter next Thursday, as the business papers make clear. I hope my colleagues will respond to the Francis inquiry in the course of this month, which in itself will give us a basis for considering what processes follow from that.

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

More than 40 employment agencies are operating in Corby, which is disproportionate. Having met representatives of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills this week, I am particularly concerned that there are now plans to cut the employment agency standards inspectorate, which protects the most vulnerable in my community, particularly in workplaces. May we have a debate on this?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may by all means seek to secure an Adjournment debate on these issues, and I will certainly talk to my BIS colleagues about the points he raises, but in this context he might like to celebrate the fact that employment in this country has risen by over 800,000 since the election and more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created. If his constituency’s experience is contrary to the national trend, he might like to consider what further measures to stimulate employment will be needed in his constituency, especially as the area in general is seeing employment growth.

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

May we have a statement from the Justice Secretary about the need to restore honesty in sentencing, with particular reference to the fact that convicted terrorists stand to benefit from being released halfway through their sentences, with the extra burden that will inevitably place earlier than necessary on the police and security services?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, the type and length of a sentence imposed is a matter for the courts, but severe maximum penalties, including life sentences, are available for terrorism offences and terrorists frequently receive long custodial sentences. He will also know that extended sentences imposed on those convicted of a specified terrorist offence attract eligibility for parole consideration at the two-thirds point of the custodial period, with automatic release only once the custodial period has been served in full. I can assure him that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is keen to ensure public protection and keeps these matters under close review.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Children and Families Bill has much to commend it, but as it goes through Committee the bedroom tax will hit foster carers, adoptive parents, disabled children and some children with special educational needs, all of whom stand to benefit from the provisions in the Bill. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to protect the children affected by the bedroom tax so that the widely supported measures in the Bill are not completely undermined by actions elsewhere in government?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, the Children and Families Bill has a great deal to commend it, including its important provisions for the support of families with children with special educational needs. I am sure that he was in the Chamber and heard the responses given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a series of questions yesterday. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we must understand not only the context of the £23 billion that is payable in housing benefit and the need to deal with that but how the change is being undertaken in a fair way. It is important to recognise that it brings the social housing sector into line with practice in the private rented sector in a way that offers not only access to a hardship fund but specific exemptions for some of the most vulnerable categories of tenants.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the perspicacious and insightful fifth report of the Procedure Committee, which recommends that the Second Church Estates Commissioner and the other colleagues who answered questions earlier today should be allowed to make statements to the House on serious matters of national importance?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, and, if I may, I will seek time, as it is our practice to do, to try to secure an opportunity for the House to consider matters recommended by Select Committees relating to House business. We will discuss that through the usual channels in the normal way, but I entirely recognise my hon. Friend’s point, although, as he will recognise, only in extremely rare circumstances will it be felt appropriate for such a statement to be made.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has already, in passing, mentioned exports and it is vital that economic recovery, when it finally comes, should be export-led. Sterling’s recent dramatic fall in value should, at the very least, help the competitiveness of our exports, but net trade actually fell in the last quarter and the Bank of England has described our trade performance as disappointing. May we therefore have a debate on the crucial subject of trade and exports to see how the Government can raise their game?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not have a policy for the value of the pound in international markets. We have a policy to support growth, enterprise and employment in this country and we can see how employment has increased and how we are supporting the private sector in wealth creation through deregulation measures, the reduction of corporate tax rates and the dramatic increase announced by the Chancellor in access to investment allowances. There are issues with exports, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, because of the dramatic reduction in demand in the eurozone, which is hitting so many economies that are dependent on it. At the same time, in the first two years of this Government, British exports of goods have increased by 47% to China, by 33% to India, by 33% to Brazil and by 134% to Russia. As he rightly says, we need therefore to focus on stimulating that activity. The Chancellor’s autumn statement gave very specific additional support to UK Trade & Investment to do exactly that.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Yesterday was estimates day, and as usual we voted through countless billions of pounds of public expenditure with no vote and no debate. Yesterday, however, something different happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) tried to talk about estimates on estimates day, but he was immediately ruled out of order and told to get back to medical implants. As it happens, we have produced a report for the Chancellor on how to improve the accountability of estimates to Parliament and it is sitting in the Library. May we have a debate in Government time about how we can talk about estimates on estimates day?

[Mr Lansley]

I was present in the House and I think my hon. Friend is referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) said that he believed that if he had sought to talk about estimates, he would have been ruled out of order, although I do not believe that the Chair issued any ruling at all. As the House will know, the determination of the subjects for debate on those two estimates days was conducted by the Liaison Committee. I have read the report published by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Southport. There is a fair point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I have discussed on the Public Accounts Commission, about improving and enhancing the scrutiny of public expenditure by this House in a number of ways. I shall not talk about what they might be, but I share the view that we should find an opportunity in the future to try to enhance that.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House and make an urgent statement so that we can do a fact check on his answer to me yesterday, which was inaccurate when he claimed that severely disabled children, pensioners and people needing round-the-clock care were exempt from the council tax? With reference to children, those families with a second spare bedroom will face the bedroom tax. The only reason that some severely disabled children are exempted is a Court of Appeal ruling which, perversely, the Government are challenging.

[Mr Lansley]

I think that when the hon. Gentleman referred to council tax, he was referring to housing benefit. [Interruption.] Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman and I heard what the Prime Minister said, and the Prime Minister is assiduous in ensuring that what he says to the House is accurate. If ever what he said was not accurate, he would of course correct it.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

There is glorious news coming from the High Court this morning that campaigners for the children’s heart unit have won their case against the review. It is a tremendous victory for the parents and families and I pay tribute to them. It clearly confirms the view that the review is flawed. The judge said that the review team made an ill-judged and fatal mistake in not revealing how the Kennedy sub-scores were compromised. Recognising that there will be a further judgment, may we have a statement on the day of that judgment or the very next day so that we can get the matter resolved once and for all for those patients?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said before, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House who have been assiduous in representing their constituents’ interests. I will not repeat what I said, but there will be a follow-on decision by the Court relating to what this decision means in terms of the process itself. As the process is conducted not by the Government, but by an independent joint committee of primary care trusts, it will in the first instance be a matter for it. I would not encourage my hon. Friend to assume that it is the responsibility of Ministers at that moment to do other than to report the facts to the House. It is not their responsibility at this point to determine the progress of the review.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Leader of the House organise an urgent debate on the use of English in the House, following the new euphemism that we heard yesterday, when the bedroom tax became the spare room subsidy? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative party changed the community charge to the poll tax, it cost them a leader.

[Mr Lansley]

When it comes to language in the House, we should first set out not to call things something that they are not. Calling something a tax when it is not a tax is not a good use of language.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motions 1097 and 1157 about the cost of petrol and diesel and fuel poverty?

[That this House notes the action that the Government has taken to cut the cost of petrol and diesel, with a cut in fuel duty in 2011, two freezes in 2012 and the scrapping of the planned rise in January 2013; further notes, however, that rocketing fuel bills are causing misery for millions, and that this matters because fuel duty is a tax on everything, hitting food prices, bus prices and everyone who commutes to work; further notes that fuel duty hits the poorest the hardest, and that many workers in Harlow constituency and elsewhere are spending a tenth of their income just filling up the family car; and therefore calls on the Government to do everything in its power to stop the planned September rise in fuel duty and to help keep prices down.]

May we have a debate on petrol prices and fuel poverty, following the report by the RAC Foundation that the poorest are paying 20% of their income to fill up the family car, whereas the richest are paying 10%?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen the early-day motions to which my hon. Friend refers. I cannot promise an immediate debate but as he knows, this is a matter that we have considered in the House and no doubt we will have an opportunity to do so again soon. I know that he believes, as I do, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken important steps to ensure that petrol at the pumps is now 10p a litre lower in price than it would have been if the fuel escalator under the previous Government had been carried forward.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

During the recess I tried to live on £18 a week, which is what my constituents will have once the bedroom tax is introduced. I found that I ran out of food before the end of the week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the bedroom tax and its impact on nutrition?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the House had an opportunity, on a motion tabled by the nationalist parties, to debate the housing benefit structure and the under-occupancy deduction. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues felt so strongly that that was the most important issue to debate, I am surprised that they did not choose to bring it forward for debate next Tuesday, as they could have done.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Financial Services Authority authorised Barclays bank to use KPMG and Deloitte as independent reviewers of the 40,000 interest rate swap agreements mis-sold to small and medium-sized businesses. May we have a debate about the true independent City law firms, Eversheds and TLT, which Barclays is using as its fact finders to interview by phone, for sometimes up to three hours, many of the customers classified as “unsophisticated? They are discouraged from having their solicitors present, refused a transcript and often feel that they have been cross-examined. Those tactics mean that the bank’s lawyers might be breaching the solicitors’ code of conduct and only go to reinforce the bank’s reputation for bullying.

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the House will share my hon. Friend’s concern about the companies that have been affected by interest rate swap mis-selling. I will not attempt to answer the question she rightly asks, but I will ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to her directly about it.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The announcement earlier today about the permanent closure of Daw Mill colliery will have far-reaching consequences not only for the 650 people working there, E.ON, Ratcliffe power station and the 1.5 million tonnes of coal the colliery generated each year, but for the whole future of UK Coal, the British coal industry and the country’s energy supply. Why has the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change not seen fit to come to the House today to make a statement on the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of all those who responded so promptly to this major incident at Daw Mill colliery. It was, and continues to be, a serious incident. With regard to helping UK Coal, the Energy Minister met the company to discuss the matter on Monday, and a cross-Government team led by the Department of Energy and Climate Change is working with it. I will, of course, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about when it will be appropriate to report to the House on the work the Government are doing, together with UK Coal, to respond to the situation.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the importance of the City of London in creating jobs and wealth and, in particular, growing both public and private sector pensions, making Britain a wealthier country than it would be if we listened to the Opposition?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am with my hon. Friend on that. I think that such a debate would be important, if the opportunity arose. It would be an occasion to discuss the issue, rather than trying to devise some political advantage, in circumstances in which everyone knows that it was the Labour party that was responsible for the banking crisis that has so afflicted this country. Instead of apologising for that, Labour Members are trying to take political advantage when they know perfectly well that we should actually be working together to ensure that we have effective regulation of the banks, including bankers’ bonuses and not the kind of regulation that could lead to higher costs and reduced competitiveness.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Yesterday we saw a leaked internal report by the Scottish Government showing that even Scottish National party Ministers have huge concerns about the stability of the Scottish economy should Scotland become independent. May we have an urgent debate on the report, which would show once and for all that Scotland is better together?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I must confess that I was unaware of the report to which he refers, but I will certainly seek an opportunity to read it. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I think that, as we move towards to next year’s referendum, it is very important that we have the kind of debate he seeks in this House and across the country.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Did the Leader of the House see the launch this week of the “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign here in Parliament? Given that the average family throws away food worth £270 each year, may we have a debate on raising awareness of the issue and on how effective packaging and labelling can reduce the amount of food wasted?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Throwing away food not used in time is costing consumers £6.7 billion a year—£270 for the average household. Only about one in seven consumers realises that packaging can play an important role in protecting food in our homes. The Fresher for Longer campaign launched earlier this week can do a great deal of good in reducing food waste and highlighting how people can ensure that they eat food that is in good condition.

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

This week the Daycare Trust revealed that child care costs across Britain are rising by £5 a week, or 6%—twice the cost of living. May we have a statement on why the Government are still delaying bringing forward plans through the tax and benefits system to help families struggling with declining living standards and child care costs?

[Mr Lansley]

I was interested in the figures published by the Daycare Trust and understand the concerns of many families. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will support not only the measures that have already been brought forward but those recently announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), which are designed to give families exactly that kind of help in meeting child care costs while maintaining quality.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Minister responsible for the Defence Infrastructure Organisation? I remain very concerned that, in making the decision about the disposal of Wilton barracks, an optimistic assessment is being made of the local authority’s likely attitude towards excessive housing on the site when a locally supported bid has already met the needs of the local plan. It is crucial that local opinion is respected and that the Ministry of Defence does not accept a speculative bid that will not, in the end, be realisable.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point for his constituents, and I completely understand it. I am pleased to assure him that the Ministry of Defence did take local opinion into account before seeking outline planning consent. That consent has now been granted, and the site is being offered for sale on the open market by formal tender in a joint sale with a private landowner. My hon. Friend will understand that as the bids were received on 28 February and are being evaluated, they remain commercially confidential for now. However, I am told that the MOD is confident of a sale being completed shortly.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

On 12 February, during the Environment Secretary’s statement on horsemeat, at column 742 of the Official Report, I asked him whether he had ordered the testing of gelatine and gelatine-based products for horse DNA given that they would extend to food such as children’s confectionery. The Secretary of State told the House that I had asked a good question but that these were matters for the Food Standards Agency. I therefore wrote to the agency immediately after the statement. To date, I am still awaiting an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. Will the Leader of the House secure a debate in Government time about the accountability of Executive agencies, as it seems that Ministers are unwilling to answer for agencies during statements and agencies are unwilling to reply to Members of this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course seek to help the hon. Gentleman in getting a reply to his question. However, the Food Standards Agency is not an Executive agency; it is a non-ministerial Government Department that is accountable to this House through Ministers at the Department of Health, of whom I used to be one, so I fully understand the matter. I will talk to my hon. Friends to secure the response that he is looking for.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House will be united in its support for the 650 workers of Daw Mill colliery and their families following today’s announcement by UK Coal of its decision to close the mine and suddenly make most of the work force redundant following the recent underground fire, which is yet to abate. I know that the Energy Minister is doing all that he can to support the work force during this difficult time. May we have a debate in Government time on energy policy and the vital role that the coal industry plays in the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand how concerned my hon. Friend is, as are other Members, about the circumstances of the continuing fire underground and the closure of Daw Mill colliery. Of course, jobs are at risk as a consequence of that, notwithstanding that they have been reduced in recent months through a process of voluntary redundancies. As I said, not only Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change but Ministers across the Government are seeking to work with UK Coal to try to ensure that we provide all the assistance we can. I hope that there will soon be an opportunity to update the House about what that response can be.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or a statement on the recent disclosure that one in four of the UK’s top companies pays no tax at all, while an ordinary person on a lower wage continues to pay tax each and every week of the year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the general anti-avoidance measure will come into force in April—an important strengthening of our reduction of tax avoidance. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the opportunity to discuss these issues beforehand, he might find that they are relevant to the debate on the Budget.

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

We always knew that the decision to close the children’s heart surgery unit in Leeds was flawed, biased and unacceptably opaque, and today we have found out that it was unlawful. In addition, the safe and sustainable consultation as a whole has been declared unlawful and the conduct of the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts has been called into question and accused of failing in its duty. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we must have a statement in this House, because the whole review is now in chaos, and part of that statement should say that JCPCT members should never take part again in any consultation on major changes to the health service.

[Mr Lansley]

The High Court’s decision on the failure to disclose the sub-scores of the Kennedy scoring system was announced only this morning, but the judge has not made a further decision on the implications for the review itself or on the order she might make in that regard. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that it would be premature for Ministers to make a statement. Indeed, it is not for Ministers to make a decision in the first instance, as this is an independent review conducted by primary care trusts. They should decide how to proceed once the court has made its decision.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Twice the Leader of the House has given sympathy to those people at Daw Mill colliery who have lost their jobs. UK Coal owns other mines—not many, but they are still in business—and it may fold up completely as a result of the Daw Mill closure. It is one of the main employers left in the coal-mining industry. Do the Leader of the House and this Government want to be in power when the remaining part of the coal industry in England is closed down?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the closure at Daw Mill is the result of the catastrophic fire. I reiterate to him and the House that Ministers are in direct contact with UK Coal. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), met UK Coal on Monday and is co-ordinating a cross-Government response. Some 1,300 people are employed at UK Coal’s other sites, Thorseby and Kellingley, and the company believe that they remain viable operations. On that basis, it does them no good to speculate in a damaging way about the viability of those operations.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury so that he can inform the House to which media outlets the Liberal Democrats will leak the Budget? Right hon. and hon. Members will then know what papers to buy and what television programmes to watch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I think I can assure my hon. Friend that Treasury Ministers and others will respect the confidentiality of the Budget statement.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Over the past two years, Conservative-led Lancashire county council has approved the construction of four brand new primary schools: Laneshaw Bridge primary, a new Church school in Barnoldswick, St Paul’s primary and Whitefield infant school in Nelson, where I am a school governor. May we have a debate on investment in primary school buildings, so that I and other hon. Members can welcome these developments and raise the cases of other schools where investment is still needed?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that many Members throughout the House will have been pleased by and welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Schools of additional funding for capital projects in schools. Lancashire county council has been allocated basic need funding totalling £112.6 million for the period 2011 to 2015 to support the provision of additional pupil places. In Lancashire, as in many places throughout the country, that will ensure that the condition of schools is improved. It also responds to the demographic pressure moving through the school system at the moment. It is very welcome.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Being prevented from talking about Government estimates on estimates day would have puzzled Franz Kafka. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the report on improving parliamentary scrutiny of the nation’s finances mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was actually commissioned by the Chancellor because he did not think that that scrutiny was good enough?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The report has been published, but it would be premature for me to say anything about how we might respond or take the issue forward. There is no question, however, but that we want to enhance scrutiny; this is not an Executive who want to inhibit it. In many ways, we have enhanced the scrutiny of the Executive by the House, and I hope that in this respect we can go further.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given that the number of applications from hon. Members for Adjournment debates always exceeds supply and given that we are now going to sit on Friday 22 March, will my right hon. Friend seek to enhance his reputation for parliamentary innovation by effectively making that day a Wednesday in Westminster Hall, so that there might be a full programme of Adjournment debates to enhance the House’s ability to hold Ministers to account.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the House debated this matter and decided last night to sit on Friday 22 March in order to continue the Budget debate. It is scheduled for that purpose, and I know that many Members will want to contribute to that debate, so I would simply limit it to that.

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

For the third year running, the NHS staff survey at Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency has reported an increase in the number of staff members experiencing bullying. Will the Leader of the House allow an urgent debate or statement on this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that the NHS staff survey this year shows an increased proportion of members of staff who feel they know how to raise issues, but unfortunately no corresponding increase—in fact, a very slight reduction—in the number who fear that their position might be prejudiced if they do so, although the majority still feel that they can and would raise these issues. As he knows, we have to arrive at a position where all staff feel entirely confident and empowered to raise any issues affecting the safety of patients and if necessary—although it should not be necessary—to blow the whistle if they are not being listened to.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

In responding to a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), made clear his view that consideration of planning approval for onshore wind farms should take place at the same time as planning approval for essential associated infrastructure. In mid-Wales, however, a planning inspector appointed by the Minister has taken exactly the opposite view. May we have a statement outlining the Government’s position?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask the Minister of State to respond to my hon. Friend on that issue and, if there is any question of more general application, to report to the House.

State Opening of Parliament

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Written Statements

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

Her Majesty the Queen will open a new Session of this Parliament on Wednesday 8 May 2013.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.

On 18 October 2012, I published the full parliamentary recess calendar to 6 January 2014. The whole House will recognise the benefit to Members, staff, the House authorities and the House service of giving as much certainty and notice as possible of future sitting days. It enables effective scheduling of hon. Members’ work in their constituencies and allows the House authorities to plan major work projects as effectively and efficiently as possible. On 17 December 2012, the dates I had announced were put to the House in the form of a motion. The House agreed, without a Division, to the dates that had been proposed. Indeed, I do not recall any debate on the matter, or any objections being received from Opposition Members.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the motion was put to the House on 17 December. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date of the Budget by then?

[Mr Lansley]

From memory, no.

[Mr Spellar]

I want to help the right hon. Gentleman with this, so that he can construct his argument more effectively. My understanding is that the Chancellor had on 11 December announced the date of the Budget in March.

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly check my recollection, of course. My recollection is that the date of the Budget was announced in the new year, but I will gladly check that point. I am not sure that it is germane to the argument, however, because whatever the position might be, I had at that point already announced—on 18 October 2012, as I said—the calendar for the year ahead.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman is standing. I think he is presuming that I am going to give way to him a third time.

[Mr Spellar]

I can develop my argument in my speech, but it might help the right hon. Gentleman if I do so now. The reason why it is relevant whether the Chancellor had already announced the date of the Budget is that the Leader of the House would have put the dates to the House in the knowledge that the Budget was going to be in March and knowing how many days it would require, and therefore knowing how it would fit in with his sittings pattern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I hear an astute point being made from a sedentary position by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who says that if that had been the case, surely the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have raised the matter on 17 December. I do not think that they did so. I see no difficulty with this.

As I said, I clearly set out the planned dates on 18 October, and the resolution then provided Members with confirmation that the House would rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 26 March 2013 and return on Monday 15 April 2013. Following the publication of the calendar, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date for the budget as Wednesday 20 March 2013. The motion on the Order Paper today adds a further sitting day to those already agreed by the House and does so within the framework of recess dates set out in the calendar.

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

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for being courteous, and I would expect no less. Am I right in thinking that last year the Government published the Fridays on which we were planning to sit—again, it was beneficial to the House, the staff and others—and, if so, why did the Government not publish the sitting Fridays for this year?

[Mr Lansley]

What is clear, as I said, is that in order to facilitate the House, the shape of the recess framework is the most important characteristic. We want to enable hon. Members and the House authorities to structure their future activities around relatively established dates for major recesses.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I give my right hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for publishing his original timetable well in advance, as that is a very good thing, but what has he got against Wednesdays? My view and that of my constituents is that we want to hear from the Prime Minister, especially at the start of a recess period. Why do Sessions always end on a Tuesday?

[Mr Lansley]

I will come on to that point in a moment, if I may, when I address some of the issues that the shadow Leader of the House raised at business questions.

The motion adds a further sitting day and its effect will therefore be to allow the four-day Budget debate to take place, as well as to accommodate the opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule business, including the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate, on the last day before recess.

Sitting on an additional Friday would allow a continuation of the Budget debate but it would not be its last day, so there would be no requirement for Members to vote on that day. That is the best option to provide the balance between the certainty requested by the House, which the publication of the calendar in mid-October permitted, and the disposal of business before it, including providing the Backbench Business Committee with access to the debate opportunities that it would expect.

It may be helpful if I remind the House that there is a precedent for the proposal to sit on a Friday to allow the continuation of the Budget debate before a recess. Just last year, the House agreed to sit on Friday 23 March to continue the Budget debate, and I am not aware that any issues were raised following that sitting. The precedents go further back than that, as another occasion occurred under the last Administration on 11 April 2003.

As you said, Mr Speaker, an amendment in the name of the Opposition has been selected, which seeks to amend the motion to produce the effect that the House would sit not on Friday 22 March, but on Wednesday 27 March. I fear that the Opposition, in tabling the amendment, might just be thinking back to their time in government and imputing similar motives to this Government. I think they are wrong in that.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

What a gross calumny!

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady set out her reasons during business questions on 7 February. I addressed her points then, but it may be helpful for me to recap. Her first reason was that Members might already have made arrangements in their constituencies for Friday 22 March. This is valid up to the point that Members are just as likely to have made arrangements in their constituencies for Wednesday 27 March—the date proposed in the Opposition amendment. It is important to bear in mind that only those Members who wished to speak on that day in the Budget debate would be affected. Others might have commitments in their constituencies that they regard as inescapable, but on three other days they would have the opportunity, subject to catching the Speaker’s eye, to contribute to that debate. It is not a case of “speak on that Friday or lose the opportunity”.

There is a choice here, but my preference—and, I believe, the preference of Members—would be to sit on that Friday and not on the subsequent Wednesday. While the calendar is always issued with the proviso that it is subject to the progress of business, the Government are conscious that having announced dates, Members and staff might have made arrangements for the Easter recess, which it would now be inconvenient, to say the least, to change. Indeed, as I have said, the Friday would not involve the prospect of voting, and I can add that we do not intend to arrange ministerial statements for that day. Those with necessary constituency business will still be able to deal with it, which might not be the case were the House to sit on Wednesday.

The second reason given by the shadow Leader of the House was that if the House rose on a Tuesday, there could be no Prime Minister’s Question Time during that week. I do not think that anyone could accuse the Prime Minister of avoiding his duties in the House. [Interruption.] I must tell the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that his view is contradicted by the facts. The Prime Minister has made more statements to the House per sitting day in the last Session than his predecessor, spending more than 30 hours at the Dispatch Box in so doing. He also gives evidence to the Liaison Committee, and he takes all his responsibilities to the House very seriously.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) should take a look at the 2013 calendar that I published. It shows six occasions on which recesses have been proposed. There is the February recess, which we have already had, and there are the Easter, Whitsun, summer, conference and Christmas recesses. The plan was for the House to rise on a Tuesday on two of those occasions, on a Thursday on three of them and on a Friday on one of them. No pattern is involved; it is simply a matter of trying to ensure that each of the recesses has the right balance of time overall. A simple examination of the parliamentary calendar will show that there are no grounds for the supposition that we have avoided a Wednesday sitting.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend is making some very good points, and this is not a black-and-white issue, although I must add that I think that, when the rising of the House on a Tuesday can be avoided, it should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday. However, this is not just about Prime Minister’s Question Time; it is also about all the other business of the House. It is about all the Select Committee meetings and all the sittings in Westminster Hall that take place on Wednesdays. All that business is, in effect, lost when the House rises on a Tuesday.

[Mr Lansley]

It is a matter, overall, of the number of days on which the House sits. My hon. Friend may take the view that it should sit more often. As it happens, I suspect that at the end of this year it will have sat for more days than it sat in any of the preceding four calendar years. I also think that before, for example, the Easter recess, it is preferable for us not to continue our business until Maundy Thursday.

I know that the Opposition are keen to ensure that the Government are held to account, and that is to be expected, but they really ought to focus on the substance rather than the processes. When it comes to the mechanisms of accountability, the Government are achieving greater and more meaningful scrutiny than has ever been achieved before. Let me name just a few positive developments. There is more pre-legislative scrutiny, there are many substantial debates via the Backbench Business Committee, there is the work of Select Committees and their elected Chairs that we discussed in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, and there is extra time for scrutiny during the Report stages of Bills. Those are major changes that have shifted the balance from the Executive to the House.

I understand the Opposition’s intentions—I understand them very well—but I assure them that any fears that they may have, in reality, about lack of time for scrutiny are wholly misplaced, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

The length was not reduced; as hon. Members may recall, Tony Blair put the two sets of 15 minutes together into one half an hour. The figures that I have just given the House are unaffected by the changes that were made to Prime Minister’s Question Time, because the half-hour, one-day-a-week session is common to all three figures. That point does not address the pattern of avoiding Wednesdays which the statistics demonstrate we are dealing with in this debate.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not understand the point the shadow Leader of the House is making. She says that when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister the House rose for a recess on a Tuesday on 29% of occasions. She can see from the calendar that I published that the House is intended to rise twice on a Tuesday out of six occasions, which is 33.3%. Is the whole strength of her argument really the difference between 29% and 33.3%?

[Ms Eagle]

If one takes into account all the recesses since this Government have been in office, the figure goes up to 58%. That is a difference and it rather proves that this Prime Minister has a strange aversion to the House sitting on Wednesdays. That is what we are dealing with in our amendment.

Why on earth can the Prime Minister be frightened of Wednesdays? Last year’s Budget was enough to put the frighteners on anyone, let’s face it. It certainly set the bar high in standards of incoherence and incompetence, which even our part-time Chancellor will find hard to match this year. Let us remember that we had the granny tax, the churches tax, the charities tax and the pasty tax. The Chancellor had been so busy swanning around Washington in search of President Obama’s coat tails that he had forgotten to pay enough attention to one of his day jobs.

Last year’s Budget was unravelling even before the Chancellor had sat down. It was so disastrous that it spawned its own new word—omnishambles—which became the “Oxford English Dictionary” word of the year. There was open revolt against Budget measures on the Government Benches. Nine Tory MPs and four Liberal Democrats voted against the pasty tax, in defiance of their Whips. Sixteen Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat voted against the caravan tax, with two Liberal Democrat Ministers strangely missing the vote completely. No lesser person than Lord Ashcroft was moved to observe:

“The main problem is not so much that people think that the Conservative Party is heading in the wrong direction, it is that they are not sure where it is heading. And that includes me.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought. He is right to say that debates on private Members’ Bills occur on Fridays, but Members know about them for a long time in advance. They can, therefore, set their constituency calendar some distance ahead and say, with assurance, “This is a non-sitting Friday, so there won’t be a Bill that’s of interest to my constituents and I can make arrangements.” That seems perfectly sensible. My point is that all of those elements were known and we find it slightly strange that, initially, the Leader of the House, at fairly short notice, tried to spring this change on the Commons. Fortunately that was spotted, so we are having a proper debate and exploring the issues.

It is becoming clearer that there are two fundamental issues, the first of which is the steady disorganisation of parliamentary business and the Order Paper. For example, there are increasing incidents of the House of Lords and the House of Commons not sitting during the same weeks. In some cases, that causes considerable discontinuity for Bills moving between the two Houses.

[Mr Lansley]

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks—[Interruption.] We can be hopeful. If he looks at the motion, he will see that it is for the House to sit on 22 March. It does not amend the resolution of 17 December. It is the amendment that seeks to amend the resolution, the point of which was to establish the framework of recess dates, not to provide for which day, including Fridays, the House would sit. It would always have been necessary for us to come back to the question of a Friday sitting if that was the best solution. There was nothing defective about the resolution on 17 December.

[Mr Spellar]

I fully understand that when business is announced, it is always with the caveat that it is subject to the progress of Government business. As far as I am aware, no proposition has been advanced that this change is necessitated by the progress, or lack of it, of Government business.

If, for example, the Government had continued with their legislation on the reform of the upper House, but without a programme motion, that business might have taken up a considerable amount of time over the past few months. The Government might then have said that they had other issues that needed to be dealt with, that there had been insufficient progress on Government business at that point, and that they therefore needed an extra day. That would have been understandable, but this proposal is not of that order. A number of elements were involved, all of which were known, and the Government have mishandled it.

I mentioned the fact that the Lords and the Commons often meet in separate weeks. Many Members of Parliament are involved in groupings, organisations and even some formal bodies that go across both Houses, and it can be very difficult for people who organise events here, often in connection with extremely worthy causes and important issues, who are hoping to draw an audience of Members of both Houses. Similarly, parliamentary delegations from other countries often come here and want to meet up with fellow parliamentarians. The Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, for example, are fully integrated between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and peers and Members of the Commons are involved in them, but their events become much more difficult for them to attend because of the disconnection of the parliamentary timetable.

All those examples provide an indication that the Government felt that running Parliament was easy. They did not understand the dynamic of the Commons, in particular, and of Parliament in general. They did not understand the rhythm of the place. The change to the timing of the Queen’s Speech, for example, has had an impact. It has gradually worked its way through, but there is still some disconnect there.

The Government have introduced changes without really understanding how Parliament works, and this motion is another symptom of that. It should therefore quite properly be dealt with by the amendment, which will enable Members of Parliament to undertake their constituency activities, and enable the Prime Minister to do what he is trying to avoid doing, week after week—namely, to turn up here and answer to the Commons and to the country.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please 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 4 March—Remaining stages of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords] (day 1).

Tuesday 5 March—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on the budget and structure of the Ministry of Justice, followed by a debate on financing of new housing supply.

Wednesday 6 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on universal credit, followed by a debate on regulation of medical imports in the EU and UK.

At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Further details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: There will be a debate on Universal Credit, Third Report of Work and Pensions Committee 2012-13 (HC 576) Government response, February 2013 (CM 8537)].

Thursday 7 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords].

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 11 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.

Tuesday 12 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 13 March—Remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Thursday 14 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 7 March will be:

Thursday 7 March—Debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee report on the referendum on separation for Scotland: terminating Trident—days or decades?

[Ms Eagle]

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

Today would have been the 67th birthday of Robin Cook. He is remembered, among many things, for his formidable mind and for the reform and modernisation of the Commons that he delivered when he was Leader of the House.

I want to congratulate the Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who was first elected on this day in 1974. I wonder whether he agrees that there are some clear parallels between the run-up to that election and now: economic turmoil, a Conservative Government in crisis, and an Education Secretary with an eye to the main chance. There is even an NUM—a national union of Ministers to resist further cuts in their Departments. We wish them well.

It is three months since Lord Justice Leveson published his report. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital that we make sure that what happened to the Dowlers, the McCanns and countless other victims of press intrusion can never happen again? The debate that we had in this place before Christmas and the amendments attached to the Defamation Bill in the other place demonstrate clearly that parliamentarians from across all parties and across both Houses support the implementation of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. Since the Bill has now completed all its stages in the other place, when does the Leader of the House expect it to be back in this House?

The Government have been caught out trying to privatise the NHS by stealth. The NHS competition regulations create a system of compulsory competitive tendering for all NHS services. This is in breach of direct assurances given during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, not least by the Leader of the House himself. While the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister appear happy to unleash a free market free-for-all in the NHS, the Liberal Democrat Health Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), is not. On Tuesday in Health questions, he criticised the regulations, which can neither be amended nor easily withdrawn. Given the huge level of concern, will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate the statutory instrument on the Floor of the House and not upstairs in Committee?

“Channel 4 News” has published disturbing revelations about alleged cases of sexual harassment in the Liberal Democrats. While the party hierarchy have buried their heads in the sand, the victims are being let down. Next Friday is international women’s day, so will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate in Government time on sexual harassment of women and the culture of silence that all too often surrounds it?

The Leader of the House has announced that the Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is scheduled for 11 March, but the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is not due to issue its second report until later this year, after the conclusion of the Commons Committee stage, which means that the House is expected to scrutinise a Bill that is only half written. That shows contempt for the Commons, so will the Leader of the House assure us that the Committee stage will not begin before the commission has reported?

Last week we learned that the part-time Chancellor was missing £1 billion from his 4G auction receipts. He was so desperate to fiddle the figures that, as usual, he put party politics before economics. We also learned that Britain has lost its triple A credit rating. Let us remind ourselves of what the Chancellor promised in the Conservative manifesto:

“We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating”.

He also said that it would be a benchmark against which the British public could

“judge the economic success or failure of the next government.”

This is more than just a humiliation for our downgraded Chancellor—he has failed a test he set for himself. Even now, however, he is too stubborn to admit his mistakes, so the British people are paying the price for this downgraded Chancellor’s failed economic strategy. Businesses, families and pensioners feel it every day, while in April 13,000 millionaires will get a six-figure tax cut. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to begin his Budget statement with an apology?

I was shocked to see the Prime Minister hugging five hoodies in Downing street last week, until I realised it was a photo op with the chart-topping group, One Direction, for Comic Relief. This week, however, band member Harry Styles has declared himself a Labour man. He apparently styles his outfits on those of Harold Wilson and Michael Foot. Harry and I know that there is only one direction in which this Government are heading and it is the wrong one. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have instead met with hip hop artist, Plan B.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, particularly for her tribute to my distinguished predecessors. Robin Cook was a notable Leader of the House for the reforms that he brought in. Indeed, I am sure, as time goes by, that the contribution of the current Patronage Secretary will be seen as such, not least because, as our discussions in business questions show, the Backbench Business Committee has improved dramatically Members’ access to the Floor of the House to debate current issues.

The hon. Lady raised a number of matters. On the principles of the Leveson report, she will know that only a few days ago the Conservative party published proposals for a royal charter to implement them. That is subject to cross-party discussions and I urge them to proceed and come to a successful conclusion. I share the view of my noble friend Lord McNally, who made it clear on Third Reading of the Defamation Bill that, while the so-called Puttnam amendment was amended further at that stage, the amendment is still unacceptable. On that basis, I hope that an agreement will be reached that will enable us to proceed with the Bill without that amendment and to deal with Leveson properly.

It is not unknown for us to debate the regulations for public procurement in the NHS. The hon. Lady will know that it is possible for Opposition business managers to seek access to such a debate through the usual channels, and I encourage her to do so. On the substance of the issue, however, she is not right. The Prime Minister was quite right yesterday and let me reiterate what he said. If we did not have these regulations, normal procurement law and competition rules would apply. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), knows perfectly well that the principal rules for co-operation and competition would have applied in the same way before the last election. If he and the hon. Lady look at the regulations properly, which of course I have, they will see that it is possible to proceed without a competition on a single tender basis. The regulations, for the first time, create a structure that allows for “any qualified provider”. That is exactly what was said during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and what is stated in the Act. There is no change in policy. The regulations enable commissioners to go for whoever is best placed to improve the quality of the services, meet the needs of people who use the services and improve efficiency, including through an “any qualified provider” route rather than a competitive tendering route.

The hon. Lady asked about a debate on international women’s day. I have announced the business and it does not allow us to have such a debate on that day; the House is not sitting on 8 March and the business does not allow for such a debate on 7 March. However, there is an Opposition day on the following week and the Backbench Business Committee has always been receptive to Back-Bench Members who apply for such debates, as was demonstrated in the well-attended and well-structured debate that took place the week before last.

The hon. Lady asked about the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that before Second Reading—not before Committee stage, as was previously intended—the Government will publish the principal draft regulations associated with the Bill. She asked about the timing of the Committee stage. She knows perfectly well that it is our intention on Second Reading to table a carry-over motion so that we can consider carefully what is the appropriate timing for the Committee stage.

I thought that the most important sign-up to a political party this week was to the Conservative party on the part of Marta Andreasen, a UK Independence party MEP. That demonstrates that across this country people are recognising that the Prime Minister’s speech on the future of our relationship with the European Union was, as she said, a “game changer”.

I apologise that we have not been able to give the hon. Lady and her colleagues time for an Opposition day debate next week as we are making progress with legislation. When she does have that opportunity the week after next, there are many matters for her to choose from: the increase in employment last year, with the fastest rate of new employment growth in the private sector since the 1980s; the reduction of more than 80% in the number of people waiting for NHS operations for more than a year and the waits that patients have to experience in Wales under a Labour Government, which the shadow Secretary of State for Health might want to debate; and, in the Home Office context, the reduction in crime figures or the reduction in net migration to this country of a third since the last election, which was announced this morning. This is a coalition Government delivering on our promises.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Given that one of the world’s worst-kept secrets is that Commonwealth day falls on 11 March and that Commonwealth Parliaments are being encouraged to mark that day with a debate on a Commonwealth theme, how can it be that this House is being given no opportunity to debate the Commonwealth, the proposed charter or connected matters?

[Mr Lansley]

I have discussed this matter with a number of colleagues and have encouraged them to approach the Backbench Business Committee. I am not aware of whether they have done so. Of course, I have announced the business for 11 March, so I do not think that we can accommodate such a debate on that day. However, a number of Parliaments are debating the Commonwealth at some time close to that day. I encourage my right hon. Friend and others to continue to approach the Backbench Business Committee on that matter.

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

Following the question from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) about Commonwealth day, the Backbench Business Committee approached the Government to ask whether they would open Westminster Hall on a Monday afternoon to facilitate such a debate, but the Government refused. In the light of that, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Backbench Business Committee’s full allocation of time will be received from the Government before the end of the Session? By our calculations we have two provisional days booked in and nothing more on the horizon, which falls at least one day short. So far, we have 13 important and urgent Back-Bench debates that need scheduling.

[Mr Lansley]

As the House will know, the Standing Orders provide for Westminster Hall to be opened on a Monday only for particular purposes, and I did not think it appropriate for us to seek to depart from that in this instance. The hon. Lady asked about the time available for the Backbench Business Committee, and taking today’s debate into account it will have scheduled 25 and a half days’ debate in this Session. The Standing Orders provide for 27 days in this Session, and I am confident that we will meet and exceed that.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As the Leader of the House will know, last week I raised the urgency of holding a debate in Government time on the Francis report. I discussed the matter with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and she entirely agrees with me, and others, who believe it is becoming a disgrace that we are not holding a debate on that vital issue. There is also the question of Sir David Nicholson and whether he should resign. Will the Leader of the House please speak to the Prime Minister and ensure that we have that debate as a matter of urgency in Government time on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Government’s intention to have a debate on that issue. He will also know, however, that on 15 January he and his colleagues went to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for time for a debate, but it has not been scheduled. We must remember that as a general proposition this House resolved that the Backbench Business Committee should take responsibility for a wide range of debates, including general debates. If we start to re-import an expectation that the Government will provide time for such debates, it will by extension be impossible to allocate the same amount of time to the Backbench Business Committee. We will have a debate on the Francis report and discuss between ourselves how that is to be accomplished at the appropriate moment. I continue to make the general point of principle that the Backbench Business Committee exists in part to enable the House to debate current important issues, as it did with Hillsborough, for example.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the fact that we are supposedly “all in it together”, so that we can contrast the return of the curse of fuel poverty that is affecting many of our constituents with the handover of some £10 million to the outgoing chief executive of British Gas, the £1.3 billion to shareholders, and the fact that so much is being done to make life more difficult for the people we represent?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the House supported in legislation the establishment of the green deal, which will make an enormous difference to many people. Many companies in the energy sector are providing discounts on energy bills to something approaching 2 million households, and over the winter the Government are supporting many people with winter fuel payments. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Energy Bill has just been considered in Committee, and when it returns to the House it will provide an opportunity to debate many of the issues surrounding fuel and energy prices, and energy poverty.

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

On a day when the Royal Bank of Scotland announced a further £5 billion of losses, it is pertinent to call for a debate on the ongoing losses—currently around £20 billion —being suffered by the taxpayer as a result of the previous Government’s handling of the bank bail-outs in 2008. Mr Michael Cohrs, a member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, stated recently that the previous Government probably overpaid for their stakes in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group. Interestingly, the then chairman of Lloyds Banking Group, Sir Victor Blank, subsequently made a £10,000 donation to the Labour party.

[Mr Lansley]

The House will have noted that I announced in the provisional business for the week after next the Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which will allow hon. Members an opportunity to debate the issues my hon. Friend raises. In addition, the shadow Chancellor, who was the City Minister responsible at the time of a banking collapse, will perhaps have the opportunity to explain and apologise to the people of this country.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the appropriate Minister on the scandalous treatment by Tesco of more than 400 workers in a high-unemployment area in Bolsover? Tesco is transferring those workers 170 miles down south, which is a complete contradiction of the regional policy of sending jobs up to the north. Tesco has been there for only a few years. Will the Leader of the House ensure that all the assistance that Tesco got to set up its distribution factory—all the money it received from development agencies, Europe, central Government and local government—is paid back? Does he agree that that scandalous treatment shows that Tesco stinks worse than the horsemeat it has been selling?

[Mr Lansley]

The commercial decisions of Tesco are not a matter for me. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is in his place. I am sure that he, like the hon. Gentleman, has issues to raise regarding the decisions that Tesco has made. However, they are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

May we have a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on what it is doing to prevent identity fraud? I have recently received complaints from a constituent that his address has been used on two separate occasions in the registration of new companies without his knowledge or permission. The Government should not be complicit in any form of identity theft.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will speak to my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to secure a response to it. In so far as the Government have regulations and require people to be on databases, it is important that the information is valid and reliable.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has mentioned the immigration figures. He will know that today the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency has published a report showing that, last year, 300 people entered Birmingham airport without proper checks. May we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary on how that was allowed to happen? May we also have an assurance that anyone entering this country has undergone the full border checks that are required?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that the chief inspector published a report on Birmingham airport. Regrettably, it included the fact that, over a number of occasions, 278 passengers came through the primary control point when the biometric chip-reading facility had been deactivated. As the report acknowledges, that is one of a number of checks that UK Border Force officers conduct to verify identity. All criminal and immigration checks remained in place and action has already been taken to ensure that that cannot happen again. All contingency staff deployed to the border were fully trained to enable them to undertake the necessary security checks.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Before the half-term recess, we had a debate on violence against women and girls. According to the Ministry of Justice, men and boys are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as women and girls. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a big fan of equality—I believe you once referred to me as “a troglodyte” in one such debate in the previous Parliament. Therefore, in the interests of equality, may we have a debate on violence against men and boys?

[Mr Lansley]

In the interests of equality, I advise my hon. Friend to approach the Backbench Business Committee in the same way that hon. Members who secured the debate on violence against women and girls did.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

May I return to the Health and Social Care Act 2012? I remind the Leader of the House that the then Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), assured the Bill Committee that there was no intention to impose compulsory competitive tendering. Those assurances were repeated by the Leader of the House and by Earl Howe in the other place. Will the Leader of the House arrange not only for the regulations to be debated on the Floor of the House, but for us to have a debate on ministerial standards and accountability, so that we can discuss how those assurances came to be given by Ministers when something completely different has happened in the regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat what I have said before, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that the regulations are entirely consistent with commitments and statements made by Ministers during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

One of my constituents was recently knocked over and killed crossing Heybridge road in Hadley in my constituency. He was nine years old. Can we have an urgent debate on the need for West Mercia police and Telford and Wrekin council to listen to the concerns of residents of both Leegomery and Hadley about speeding traffic in those residential areas?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House shares my hon. Friend’s regret about the tragic circumstances that he describes. We have just had Transport questions, and he will know how strongly Ministers in that Department feel about the need to improve our record on road safety, good as it may already be. Local authorities can play a part in that, and I will of course ask my hon. Friends if they can add anything to enable him to approach his local authority in that way.

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

If the Leader of the House had been in another part of the House this morning, he could have heard the Children’s Commissioner tell a group of us interested in children’s issues that we have the worst outcomes for child health in Europe. With the plague of obesity and lack of exercise, and the evidence that the likelihood of any young person going to any green spaces in our country has halved in a generation, may we have an early debate on children’s access to the countryside?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to hear the Children’s Commissioner: I would have appreciated doing so. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that in January last year, knowing that we had poor child health statistics relative to other highly developed countries, I asked a team led by the medical director at Alder Hey and other distinguished clinicians and representatives in that area to form a taskforce, which reported last year. On that basis, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) last week announced further measures to take that forward as part of a strategy to improve children’s health.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Given the changes to A-levels announced by the Department for Education in November 2012, can we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to advise on how the Government intend to prevent students who started their A-level courses in September 2012 from being adversely affected by the changes midway through their course?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Education Ministers will be here on Monday to answer questions. He will also know that the decision to remove the January exams was taken by Ofqual, following strong support during its regulatory consultation on A-level reform. That consultation highlighted concerns that modular exams and a high frequency of re-sit opportunities led to teaching to the test and a culture of re-sits. Removing the January exam will limit the number of re-sit opportunities and help to address those concerns, but it will impact on those students who began their course in September 2012.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Party politics aside, all our constituents and local businesses are angry at and frustrated by the contemptuous way in which the bankers and energy companies are treating us. Could we therefore have a debate on how best we could give protection to consumers in our constituencies? Our Select Committees do an excellent job in scrutinising these industries but lack any effective powers. Is that something that the Leader of the House would be prepared to consider?

[Mr Lansley]

I say to the hon. Gentleman—equally, party politics aside—that we are not powerless in this House. We are discussing an Energy Bill that will require energy companies to give their customers access to the lowest possible tariffs. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is currently looking at the question of standards in banking and the way in which customers are treated by the banking industry. We are not powerless and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill and the Energy Bill can be instrumental in giving consumers a better offer in relation to these industries.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on their recent decision to stop backing World Bank and IMF loans to Argentina, because Buenos Aires has an appalling record of defaulting on international loans. Unbelievably, the country is still a member of the G20 despite its appalling economic record and how it behaves internationally. Can we have a debate on how G20 membership is decided?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend may wish to raise that issue with Foreign Office Ministers on Tuesday, but I appreciate what he has to say about World Bank loans to Argentina. The G20 is an informal organisation with no formal criteria for membership, and that has remained unchanged since it was first established. Any change to G20 membership, or the introduction of criteria for membership, would require consensus agreement by its members. Currently, there are no plans to revisit either.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on bankers’ bonuses? I understand that the Government are opposing the EU proposal to limit them without shareholder permission to the salary of the banker concerned. According to Wiktionary, a bonus is extra pay due to good performance. A bonus that is in excess of an entire salary is not extra pay due to good performance. Is it not just pure, unadulterated, sheer, naked greed?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he has to recognise that, as he will have noticed from how many people have responded to the proposal agreed between the Commission and Parliament, it runs the risk of converting what properly should be a bonus into something that is consolidated into people’s salaries. That would lead to additional fixed rather than variable costs in the banking industry. We have to focus on ensuring that the industry is competitive and that bonuses are genuine, and not end up with an artificial situation that makes the industry more costly and less competitive.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The local authority in the Vale of Glamorgan has recently been considering plans to close three schools. Two are among the best in Wales, and one is one of the most improved in the area. Unfortunately, the final decision lies with the local authority. Thankfully, it has been forced by parents to back down. Can we have a debate on free schools, which empower parents to take control of the future of these establishments? Such a debate would also inform and educate people across other parts of the UK.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and I am sure his constituents will be too for the support he gives them in this respect. He will be frustrated that the Labour Government in Wales are not adopting reforms analogous to those being pursued in England by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. My right hon. Friend will be at the Dispatch Box on Monday and, although it is not his ministerial responsibility, I am sure he would share with Members in this House the view that if the Welsh Labour Government followed some of the precepts of academies and free schools, it would be much to the advantage of parents and pupils.

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

It is 10 years since the start of the conflict in Darfur, which led to the slaughter of 300,000 Darfuris. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on human rights in Sudan? Is he aware that this morning 98 politicians from the UK, United States and Australia signed an open letter to their Foreign Ministers asking for urgent leadership in the Security Council to ensure that we do not see a repeat of that violence and a man-made famine in southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and he does it well. He will have an opportunity to raise the issue again with Foreign Office Ministers on Tuesday. He will find that my hon. Friends in the Government share his concern to ensure that we continue to keep up the pressure on Sudan to respect human rights and to maintain a level of peace in that country.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Head teachers in my constituency have told me that they have been able to use the pupil premium money to help some of the most disadvantaged pupils in their schools. Can we have a debate about the success of the pupil premium policy and ensure that schools have the freedom to make decisions on how to allocate the pupil premium budget without pressure from trade unions or local authorities trying to resist?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend shares my view that the £2.5 billion now in the pupil premium is making a dramatic difference, particularly for schools that have a responsibility to try to secure the best education for some of the most disadvantaged pupils—that is terrifically important. From having talked to head teachers, I know that of particular importance to them are the freedoms we have given them in a range of respects, especially the freedom to use those resources in the best interests of the school as a whole.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Early on 15 February, there was a major fire in Rochdale at what was the world’s biggest asbestos factory, the now derelict Turner Brothers mill. Firefighters spent five hours battling the blaze, and concerns have been raised that no air monitoring took place. Will the Government make a statement that promises the people of Rochdale that this matter will be investigated, that the site will be secured, and that all laws to protect our environment and public health will be fully enforced?

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I was not aware of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, but they are obviously very important for his constituency and beyond. I will therefore talk to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the Environment Agency and colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the Health and Safety Executive to see whether they can respond to his points.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

You may recall, Mr Speaker, that a month ago I asked the Leader of the House a question about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. No organisation, charity or business would allow its finance department to budget for a cost per employee of about £10,000 per annum to process each individual claim. What does he think of IPSA senior management’s bullying tactics and threats, subsequent to my raising these issues, to try to silence me regarding their spiralling costs? Does he think that the chief executive should show some backbone and meet me—he has refused to do so for more than two and a half years —instead of attempting to smear the names of Members of Parliament by false innuendo and subterfuge?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate the sincerity with which that point has been raised, and it is a matter of concern to the House, but I am afraid that it is not a business question. The hon. Gentleman should have requested a statement or a debate, but it absolutely was not a business question, as I have just been reminded by the Clerk Assistant. The Leader of the House may wish to say something, but Members really must play by the rules and not invent them as they go along.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand, Mr Speaker. If it is helpful to the House, I will of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend and, as a member of your Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I would be glad to take forward any issues he has.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the proper use of employment statistics? The Leader of the House mentioned the number of people in employment, but of course what actually matters is the employment rate. Earlier this week, the Chancellor was dismissive of my raising problems of underemployment; he referred to the number of hours worked, but it is the rate of underemployment that matters. Ministers can try to ignore the problem if they wish, but that will not convince constituents of mine who can get only a zero-hours or 10-hours contract when what they actually want is a full-time, permanent job.

[Mr Lansley]

I was present at the time and I am sure the Chancellor was correct in saying that the number of hours worked has increased. The key points are of course that the number of people in work is up and is now 29.73 million, and that the employment rate is 71.5%. Rather than trying to make a point in the way she does, the hon. Lady should celebrate the fact that since the election employment in the private sector has risen by over 1 million and, as a consequence, last year’s employment increase was the fastest rate of private sector growth in employment since the 1980s.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1116 on Tesco?

[That this House notes with huge regret and disappointment the planned closure of the Tesco distribution plant at Harlow; further notes the contribution that many Harlow workers have made to its success and the strong customer base that they have served throughout the Eastern region, as well as tens of thousands of families in Harlow town itself; accepts that Tesco has pledged that all workers will be offered positions elsewhere including the new Dagenham site; urges that pay and conditions remain the same or better for staff who have been affected; thanks the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for its efforts on negotiating on behalf of Tesco employees; and calls on Tesco to do everything possible to look after its many hundred loyal and committed staff at the Harlow depot.]

May we have an urgent debate about workers’ pay and conditions? Hundreds of Harlow workers are losing their jobs because the Tesco distribution centre is closing. Will my right hon. Friend write to the Business Secretary to ensure that workers who are given jobs elsewhere retain their pay and conditions?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, as my hon. Friend requests, talk to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, not least to ensure that we do everything we can to support workers in Harlow, Bolsover and elsewhere.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Media reports are suggesting that the Government are pushing ahead at great pace with the privatisation of Royal Mail. Given that the House has not debated the issue since the passing of the Postal Services Act 2011, may we have an urgent debate or a statement on the Government’s proposals for the privatisation of that much-cherished national institution?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman suggests in his question, the House has resolved what should happen, and it is now a question of carrying that forward. He will of course have an opportunity to ask questions of Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shortly. I do not have the date—

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

On 21 March.

[Mr Lansley]

It will be on 21 March.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Government are doing excellent work on women’s issues, from equal pay audits, to women on boards domestically, to putting women and girls front and centre in international development. May I encourage calls for a debate to celebrate international women’s day and the brilliant work that this Government are doing on women’s issues?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will have heard me say in response to the shadow Leader of the House that the House will not be sitting on 8 March, which is international women’s day, but that I hope that if he and other hon. Members across the House were to approach the Backbench Business Committee, it might find an opportunity for a debate to celebrate the many ways in which women are at the heart of the delivery of the economy and enterprise—[Hon. Members: “There is not one woman on the Government Benches!”]—and indeed of good government in this country.

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

Yes, it is nice to see so many women from the coalition Government parties on their Benches today!

I would like to ask the Leader of the House about the restrictions that have been placed on Hull City supporters who will be travelling to Huddersfield for the football game on 30 March. They have been told that they will have to travel by coach from Hull, and that restriction is causing a lot of problems for my constituents. May we have a debate in the House on putting in place sensible guidelines on the placing of restrictions on football matches, so that such restrictions are used only when there is clear evidence that the police need them?

[Mr Lansley]

I suspect that that might be an operational issue for the police, and that it should therefore be raised with the chief constable. I am not necessarily amenable to granting a debate on the specific instance that the hon. Lady has raised, but she will recall that I have previously expressed the hope that there might be an occasion on which the House could debate issues relating to football governance. Such a debate could stretch widely across the way in which football is not only governed but policed, as that would also be relevant.

I must also point out that the women Members on the Government side of the House—those from my party, at least—are busy in Eastleigh today, seeking to secure the election of a new woman Member of Parliament, Maria Hutchings.

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

During this Parliament, more than 650,000 apprenticeships have been started by people under the age of 24, and over half of all apprenticeships are now taken up by women. We have seen a significant increase in the take-up of apprenticeships in the north, especially in my constituency. Please may we have a debate to explore the role that apprenticeships are playing in the rebalancing of our economy? Next month, we will celebrate national apprenticeship week, so that might prove to be helpful timing.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to celebrate the fact that we are increasing the number of apprenticeships—1 million over two years—and that efforts under the youth contract announced by the Deputy Prime Minister are enabling us to focus on the needs of young people, through apprenticeships and the new traineeships that will enable them to access vocational opportunities.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

One of the features of this Parliament has been the collapse of the Government’s agenda for constitutional reform. May we have a debate on why it is considered unnecessary to have fewer thorough debates on constitutional reform in this Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. This Government are pursuing issues relating to constitutional reform. We have reformed Parliament in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, we have changed the arrangements in this House and we are taking forward measures relating to the recall of MPs. As a Conservative, I always like the need for constitutional reform to be proven by evidence, and that is how we are proceeding.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Council-provided services in Montgomeryshire are under threat of devastation because of the legal costs of defending decisions, arrived at democratically, to refuse planning permission for wind farms. The foreign-owned energy leviathans that are taking those actions seem to have unlimited access to subsidies to pay for their costs. May we have a statement on the Government’s position on this matter, to determine how democracy might be retained in Montgomeryshire?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that my hon. Friend and I have discussed the issue previously at business questions and I will, of course, go back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We want to make sure that there is a kind of equality of arms before the law so that people feel that they are not inhibited from getting access to planning opportunities or planning decisions simply because of the deep pockets of those seeking planning approval.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on regional variations in the numbers of those diagnosed with dementia? In England and Wales the figure is some 43%, in Northern Ireland it is approximately 60% and in Belfast, the central and largest city in Northern Ireland, it is 75%. The differentials and variations are obvious. An exchange of medical expertise in diagnosis for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be to everyone’s advantage.

[Mr Lansley]

We had a debate on dementia quite recently. It is important to understand regional variations on dementia, particularly given that, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Northern Ireland has a good record in identifying and diagnosing dementia. To that extent, the figures he quoted are about a differential in diagnosis rather than necessarily a variation in the incidence—or, I should say, the prevalence—of dementia in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is important to understand this issue, which is why the dementia challenge is in part precisely about ensuring that we get much higher rates of dementia diagnosis across parts of England and Wales.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Can we have an urgent Government statement, because it is grossly unfair that each week the Leader of the House turns up at business questions to be duffed over by Members on both sides of the House over the allocation of time for parliamentary business? That happens because it is the Government who allocate the time. The coalition is committed to a Business of the House Committee made up of parliamentarians of all parties, excluding Front Benchers. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are opposed to such a measure, as long as it is based on the Jopling principles. We are committed to having this committee by the beginning of May: when are we going to have this Business of the House Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that I am not opposed to a House business committee; I am supportive of it, but we need to get it right. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is examining the issue right now. I do not feel in the least bit—

[Mr Bone]

Upset?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not in the least feel under any kind of duress in respect of the allocation of time. I just need to remind Members from time to time that the House has resolved that a substantial part of its time—something approaching half the total number of sitting days—is made available to the Backbench Business Committee, to the Opposition, to the Liaison Committee—[Interruption.] We have to secure the business of government. From my point of view, it is absolutely transparent that a House business committee should add value to the measures that have made progress in this Parliament in giving Back Benchers access to parliamentary time, rather than detracting from them.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

In connection with this question, I remind the House that my daughter is a practising medical student.

Final-year medical students face uncertainty this week over their foundation programme jobs because of application scoring errors in the new SJT—situational judgment test. This week, more than 7,000 final-year medical students who were initially delighted to receive their foundation school allocations may be concerned that those allocated jobs are now at risk. Students were informed of this by e-mail at 6.30 on Tuesday, with no apology for the error, causing some distress and anxiety. That is completely unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House request a statement from the Secretary of State?

[Mr Lansley]

The UK Foundation Programme Office is working urgently to resolve these problems so that there is minimum disruption to doctors and the affected hospitals, and to ensure that everyone is notified as quickly as possible about their placements for August. The error should not have happened and we are concerned about the anxiety that this has caused to students. I reiterate—and I recall making this clear when I was the Secretary of State for Health—that all eligible graduates of a UK medical school will receive a training place for August 2013.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Last Thursday I was given a guided tour of the new Visions Learning Trust university technical college at Victoria Mill in Burnley by Martin Gallagher, the college principal, and Steve Gray, the chief executive of Training 2000. The multi-million-pound college, which will open in August this year and will admit students aged between 14 and 19, is designed to appeal directly to the more vocationally minded, and is exactly what large Pendle employers such as Rolls-Royce, Weston EU and Graham Engineering said that our area needed. May we have a debate on university technical colleges, and the fantastic opportunity that they provide for young people to gain access to an education linked directly to the skills and knowledge that our local employers say that they desperately need?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to say that we could find time for a debate soon, but we may not be able to do so, although I am sure that the issues that he has raised would be relevant to questions to the Secretaries of State for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills.

My hon. Friend’s question had a certain resonance for me, because only last Friday I was standing on the site in Cambridge where a university technical college is to be established. It will focus on the provision of technical training for young people who will work in life sciences around Cambridge. The crucial aspect of such education is that it is directed to the needs of employers in an area, and enables young people to feel confident that the training they receive will enable them to find jobs quickly.

Business of the House (26 February)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That at the sitting on Tuesday 26 February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on Thursday 14 February I confirmed to the House that the business for tomorrow, 26 February, would be the remaining stages of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill followed by opposed private business. Tonight’s motion seeks to ensure that the House can spend the planned amount of time on each of those items of business.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that if we agree to the motion it is likely that we will spend three hours after the moment of interruption in a debate that goes very late into tomorrow night?

[Mr Lansley]

All I can confirm to my hon. Friend is that if we agree to the motion we will protect the time available for the debate on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and ensure that the House has the time intended—that is, three hours—to discuss opposed private business. As my hon. Friend and the House will recall, the programme motion for the Bill allows up to four hours for consideration on Report and Third Reading. The motion would then permit opposed private business to run for up to three hours following the conclusion of our debate on the Bill.

[Mr Bone]

I might have misunderstood, but I thought that the House’s view was that tomorrow’s business on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill should run until the moment of interruption. I think that the Leader of the House is talking about a variation to the programme motion that has not yet been put before the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, as it is rare for us to do so, but in this instance I am afraid that he is wrong. The programme motion for the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill allows up to four hours for Report and Third Reading.

The motion is needed because even without any statements, four hours of debate on the Bill would take us beyond 4 pm, which is the normal time for commencing opposed private business on a Tuesday. It will also therefore allow the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption—that is, 7 pm. Although the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was not selected for debate, it would have prevented opposed private business from being taken if it were reached after 4 pm. As I have just said, we do not expect business on the Bill to conclude before 4 pm and the opposed private business is likely to be reached after that. The amendment would therefore have obstructed the opposed private business tomorrow. I know that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in such business and I am surprised that he would have sought to do that.

If the motion is passed, we will be able to debate the Bill and opposed private business as planned. I do not believe that the House would want to obstruct the business that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down for tomorrow in accordance with Standing Orders, so I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Tonight we are discussing a significant point of principle. We are lucky to have a benign Leader of the House, but that will not always be the case.

Yet again we see the Executive abusing their position by getting rid of Standing Orders, or abandoning them for the day. It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, that on Tuesday, if private business has been laid down by the Chairman of Ways and Means, it should be debated between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock. That is specified for certainty, so that we will not be discussing important legislation late at night just because it is private. Of course, there might be an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, which would take precedence, but otherwise Standing Order No. 20 requires private business to be taken between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock.

On 19 November 2012 the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill programme motion clearly stated:

“Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.”

Nowhere in that programme is there discussion of a four-hour rule. I am sure the Leader of the House is about to correct me.

[Mr Lansley]

I will correct my hon. Friend to this extent: if he looks at the Remaining Orders and Notices on the Order Paper today, he will see that No. 4 is the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3) motion, which sets out that proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion after three hours and on Third Reading after four hours, so the nature of the programme motion intended to be attached to the debate on the Bill tomorrow is clearly set out on the Order Paper.

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the apology for what he said earlier, but I believe I am still correct in saying that what the House voted for, and the position tonight, is the programme motion of 19 November. The Leader of the House may wish to table a programme motion tomorrow to curtail the debate on the Bill.

We have two things going wrong here. We have a reduction of scrutiny of the Bill and at the same time we are pushing back—it could be very late, because we do not know if there will be any statements or urgent questions tomorrow—discussion of private business. It is really a bit of a dog’s ear—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly respond, simply to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), that we are debating this now because an objection was taken to the motion providing for opposed private business tomorrow that was on the Order Paper and considered after 10 o’clock, the moment of interruption, on 13 February. I am sure that the House is quite amused by my hon. Friend’s support for the promoters of the private Bill and the certainty they require about its progress; with that solicitude from him, they must feel a little like someone in the embrace of a particularly large boa constrictor—[Interruption.] I would never impute any negative motive to my hon. Friend, that is for sure.

I think that I might reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that the intention is not to do any serious damage to the time at which the opposed private business is to be taken on a Tuesday. The intention tomorrow will be to ensure that the House considers the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and agrees the time that is available for it. I am sure that the usual channels have made sure that the House has an opportunity to consider the Bill to the necessary extent. Therefore, if the programme motion is agreed to and consideration of the Bill is concluded after four hours, the House is likely to start considering the opposed private business at about 4.40 pm, if there are no urgent questions or statements—[Interruption.] I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who says “Ah” in that way from a sedentary position, that we are always subject to the question, as he rightly said, of whether there will be a Standing Order No. 24 motion, whether an urgent question will be sought and granted and whether a statement will be made. Those matters will inevitably give rise to a degree of uncertainty, so although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is talking about the certainty that is required, very rarely in this place do we have absolute certainty about the timing of proceedings.

[Mr Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, because I always want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, but then I must conclude.

[Mr Chope]

I am going to practise my snake-charming, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the doctrine of reasonable expectations is now being regularly undermined by the Government, because when the House voted to change the sitting hours the expectation was that it would rise on a Tuesday, subject to the Adjournment, at 7 o’clock? Now it almost invariably sits much later than that. It is almost as though the Government were changing the policy.

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. On the contrary, I think that we are meeting our expectations with regard to the sittings of the House with considerable regularity and certainty. On that basis, the worst-case scenario tomorrow, without urgent questions or statements, is that business will conclude at 7.40 pm. Of course, he must remember, and Members will be aware, that the programme motions and this motion show a maximum amount of time. The motions do not require us to debate the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill for four hours, nor do they require us to debate opposed private business for three hours—we can choose to debate for a shorter period.

While debating the City of London (Various Powers) Bill and its important measures tomorrow, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others to remember their urging tonight that the House should conclude its business at 7 o’clock—and it may be in their gift to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 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 25 February—Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill.

Tuesday 26 February—Remaining stages of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Wednesday 27 February—Opposition Day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist party, subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2013.

Thursday 28 February—Debate on a motion relating to the Kesri Lehar campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in India, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 25th anniversary of the Kurdish genocide. The subjects for those debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 1 March—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 March will include:

Monday 4 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform Bill).

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 February will be:

Thursday 28 February—Debate on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee report on the European Regional Development Fund, followed by a debate on nuisance phone calls.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. The Opposition welcome the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to schedule a debate this afternoon on violence against women and girls. The campaign states that three quarters of a million children witness acts of domestic abuse every year, and that one third of girls in relationships aged between 13 and 17 have experienced physical or sexual violence. Shockingly, one in three women will be beaten or raped in her lifetime. Today’s debate coincides with a series of actions across the UK as part of the One Billion Rising global campaign. Will the Leader of the House join me in fully supporting that campaign?

One of the first actions of the Work and Pensions Secretary after the election was to abolish Labour’s future jobs fund. The Prime Minister then went around claiming that it was

“one of the most ineffective jobs schemes there’s been.”

However, an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of the future jobs fund, published by this Government, said that it was one of the most successful and cost-effective schemes ever.

Yesterday the Government had to rush emergency regulations through the House after the courts ruled the Government’s Work programme illegal. For most people looking for work, however, what matters most is the assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of the Work programme, which concluded that the current scheme is “worse than doing nothing”. The Government blundered in scrapping the future jobs fund and setting up the Work programme. The Work and Pensions Secretary was happy to attack the courts in yesterday’s newspapers, but he has not come to the House. May we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary on the future of the Work programme?

Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed that the bedroom tax “is not a tax.” This week the Government Chief Whip apparently e-mailed Conservative backbenchers:

“Please could all colleagues refer to underoccupancy and not the bedroom tax?”

You can change the name but you cannot change the facts. This April the bedroom tax will hit those at the bottom, while at the same time the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to those at the top. That is what the Chancellor decided to do in his previous Budget. After the omnishambles of the previous Budget it was reported this week that the Chancellor has retreated to his country house to pore over Budget plans with Conservative party staff to try to do a better job next time.

May I make a constructive suggestion? Before the Government get themselves into another fine mess, the Leader of the House could arrange for the Chancellor to make a statement next week so that he can U-turn on the bedroom tax and U-turn on the tax cut for millionaires. It is hardly as though the Government do not know how to U-turn: new figures show that since the election they have announced a U-turn every 29 days. Given that the Education Secretary U-turned on GCSEs this time last week, I calculate that the next Government U-turn is due on 8 March. As 8 March is a Friday and not a sitting day, will the Leader of the House arrange for his colleagues to bring forward the next U-turn to a day when the House is sitting?

Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Harold Wilson, who 50 years ago today was elected leader of the Labour party? He was a Member of the House for almost 40 years and led the Labour party for 13 years. He was Prime Minister for more than seven years. Government Members might reflect on the fact that, after the February 1974 election, Harold Wilson chose to lead a minority Government rather than go into coalition with the Liberals. He went on to win the subsequent election later that year.

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, who managed a brief appearance on his weekly London phone-in this morning from Mozambique? I can only conclude that he has gone to Mozambique to help the Liberal Democrats in the Eastleigh by-election. Yesterday, the Chancellor went to Eastleigh, which will also help the Liberal Democrats. As Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs fight it out in Eastleigh, there is only one thing to say: things can only get better.

The coalition has been going through a rough time. Relationships are strained. As all good marriage guidance says, when a relationship hits tough times, you need to get the romance back—put a bit of spice back into it and have a bit of fun. It is Valentine’s day, so in that spirit may I suggest to the Leader of the House that Conservative MPs should be encouraged to take out a Liberal Democrat colleague—for a suitably expensive Valentine’s day meal?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I join her in expressing support for the One Billion Rising campaign. She will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities said earlier in Question Time. She will have a further opportunity in the debate this afternoon to express support. I welcome the debate and the focus it rightly puts on that important issue.

I was quite surprised that Harold Wilson was the subject of a programme on Channel 4 on the eve of Valentine’s day. It was not an obvious choice. I remember Harold Wilson because he addressed the first political meeting I attended—in 1966, at Abbs Cross school in Hornchurch. That was in the good old days, when I was politically neutral and 10 years old.

We must be careful with Valentine’s day references. I read an interview with the Leader of the Opposition in The Guardian this morning. In telling us about the nature of his Valentine’s day evening—a Chinese takeaway, followed by what he describes as “a surprise”—I fear he provided us with altogether too much information.

I tried to detect questions about business from the hon. Lady, but I am not sure there were any. A written ministerial statement on the Work programme and the Wilson and Reilly court case was made on Tuesday. It is clear that the courts did not quash the principle of the scheme—the problem was the structure of the technical regulations and how they worked. We put down regulations to put that right for the future, and we will continue to contest the Court of Appeal’s decision. That is a matter for the courts and not, for the moment, for this House.

The hon. Lady asked about the under-occupancy charge, but the Government rest on the facts. The simple facts, which we have discussed in business questions and at Prime Minister’s questions, are that, under the previous Government, Labour Members were perfectly content for an under-occupancy deduction to be applied to housing benefit in the private sector, but somehow find it impossible to read that across into the social housing sector. They fail to recognise—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made this point well in yesterday’s debate—that hundreds of thousands of homes are under-occupied, and we have a million and a half people on the social housing waiting list and need to ensure that there are incentives to use social housing stock to the best effect. Those are simple facts.

An additional simple fact is that we have to recognise that housing benefit, at £23 billion, pretty much doubled under the previous Government and we have to control that. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) sat in the debate yesterday and failed to recognise what he said when he left government, which was that there was no money left. It is curious that outside the House Labour Members seem willing to accept that. The head of their party’s policy review, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said just last night:

“The money is not there and everyone knows that.”

They have to recognise that they left us in an economic mess, and the head of their policy review says that they have to start by saying sorry for that. If their leader does not start saying sorry, they will not be able to participate in debates—as was clear yesterday—with any credible response. Their leader has gone off to Bedford and their policy review is described as a work in progress. Of course, when one is in Bedford one thinks of “The Pilgrim’s Progress”. I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition has yet to reach his slough of despond.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

In the village of Barton Stacey there is serious concern about the speed at which the Ministry of Defence is disposing of property and land, which is preventing local residents from having enough time to establish a community initiative to buy some of it for public open space. May I ask the Leader of the House for time to debate MOD property disposal, so that other communities might have the opportunity that has been denied to Barton Stacey?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point in relation to her constituency. Members across the House recognise that in the midst of the necessity to make proper disposal of surplus land right across the public estate, we want to do so in a way that recognises community interests and the views of local communities, and responds to them. I will raise this issue with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence. She may wish to note that Ministers will be here for Defence questions on Monday 25 February, and she might like to raise the issue then.

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

I think the Leader of the House could have been a little bit more generous about Harold Wilson in his remarks. Is it time that we had debates in which we can reflect on the successes and failures of previous Administrations? [Hon. Members: “Margaret Thatcher.”] Certainly we could have a debate on that too. The Wilson years provide an example of a Prime Minister who resolutely kept us out of the Vietnam war, telling LBJ he was not even going to send a band of bagpipes; who expanded higher education tremendously, establishing the Open university; and who gave people a choice on Europe, so there are lessons to be learned. There is no decent statue in the Members’ Lobby to a very fine Prime Minister. It is about time that we rectified that and put up a proper statue.

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that there is a bust of Harold Wilson in the Members’ Lobby. I hesitate to intrude on the Labour party’s grief, but as the hon. Gentleman described Harold Wilson’s attributes in office it was almost as if he was attempting a critique of Tony Blair at the same time.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In liaison with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) may I ask my right hon. Friend—who will personally recall my parliamentary campaign for a public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, into Stafford hospital, which was granted by the Prime Minister but persistently refused by the previous Government—to ensure that we have an early debate on the Floor of the House, in Government time, on the Francis report? When will it be?

[Mr Lansley]

When I was shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend and I discussed this matter fully. It has now been proved that we were absolutely right then, and I was right as Secretary of State to institute the Francis inquiry. We have the report and we will respond. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have been to the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for debate on this matter. I will, of course, gladly discuss with the Chair of that Committee when time might be available for that debate.

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

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) will shortly launch her Select Committee’s report, but she will be taking questions from Members in the form of interventions. The Leader of the House’s Office has produced a set of Standing Order changes to enable Select Committee Chairs to launch a report and then take questions in a more normal format. Will the Leader of the House please bring forward those Standing Order changes?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly discuss that with the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chair of the Liaison Committee, to ensure that we have, if possible, a format for these reports that works for Select Committee Chairs and which also suits the Backbench Business Committee in the allocation of its time.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can find a day for the House to debate the impact of the important news that the United States of America and the European Union are to start formal talks over a new free trade agreement, which would greatly increase trade between us? Will he also confirm that even though this is a pretty dismal time for free trade, with the collapse of the Doha round, our Government believe that free trade is a great and powerful tool for growth?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like me and others across the House, I am sure that he was heartened by the conclusions of the European Council and the EU’s determination to seek free trade agreements. Today’s agreement to commence EU-US free trade discussions is only one part of the EU’s ambitious agenda. That is absolutely right. I cannot identify now when time would be available for such a debate, but it would of course be entirely relevant not least to the Budget debate on maintaining the pace of economic recovery.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

By the time the House returns on 25 February, it will have been a month since British troops were first committed to assist France’s activities in Mali. We have heard that there is to be a considerable deployment of troops all across north Africa. I cannot understand why, despite repeated requests, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary has made a statement since then, and there has been no vote in the House on our significant involvement in another foreign policy adventure. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when a Minister will make a statement and give us a proper opportunity to debate this matter fully?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous business questions, including last week’s, I made it clear that a full written ministerial statement would be made before the House rose. That, of course, was made yesterday. Included in that was not only the support we are giving at the request of the French Government, but the question of when the extent of the European training mission and our support for it would be determined. Ministers will keep the House fully updated, but I reiterate the point I have made previously to the hon. Gentleman: we will continually look at and ensure that we fully comply with the convention of securing a debate in the House if our troops are committed other than on an emergency basis to any continuing conflict. Our intention is for our support to be logistical and training support, rather than in the form of combat operations.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The House will know that the Government of Israel now refuse to co-operate with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Despite that, the European football authorities are going to stage the under-21 finals in Israel later this year, and the English FA, despite its “Let’s Kick Racism out of Football” campaign in this country, will be sending a team. May we therefore have a general debate on Israel and its dependence on economic, cultural and sporting associations with the EU, and particularly the UK, when it manifestly is not geographically in Europe?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend invites me to enter tricky territory. What is Europe is often interpreted differently in different contexts, as he will remember from the Eurovision song contest, no less. I encourage him to raise this, particularly the human rights issues, with colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when they answer questions here on 5 March. I will also check with colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see whether they have anything further to add on the footballing issues.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the adequacy of the discretionary payment, which exists to support the most vulnerable people who will suffer as a result of the bedroom tax? East Ayrshire council has sent letters to people saying that they might be entitled to a discretionary payment for a short period of time, after which they will have to find the money themselves. This is a matter of serious concern to some of my most vulnerable constituents, and I would welcome the Government looking at the matter again.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government allocated an additional £30 million to the discretionary housing payment budget, taking it to £195 million. This is specifically aimed at helping disabled people who live in significantly adapted accommodation, and foster carers.

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

Given that an in/out referendum and cutting the EU budget are both now mainstream Conservative policies, may we have a debate in Government time on redefining the term “rebels” as people who are usually only a couple of weeks ahead of their time?

[Mr Lansley]

In the spirit of remembering Harold Wilson —oh, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has left the Chamber—who said that a week was a long time in politics, I suggest that in rebellions, a fortnight is an eternity.

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

There are currently only six working mothers in the Government, and only one at the Cabinet table. That might go some way towards explaining the confusion and chaos in the Government’s child care policy. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time—as it involves Government business—to discuss this matter, so that the Government can take on board the expertise of other Members from their own constituencies and their own experience?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not recognise the considerable benefits associated with the recent announcements made by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on child care policy. We are reducing the costs and burdens of child care, and creating greater flexibility. The number of women, and of women with families, in the Government has increased and will no doubt continue to do so, but I would put it gently to the hon. Lady that we men who have families understand the need for good quality child care as well.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

The Leader of the House is well aware that a lot of unitary authority and county council areas throughout the country have suffered substantial infrastructure damage as a result of flooding. Money is being made available for bolstering flood defences, but none is being made directly available for the restoration of roads, drains and hedges and for the repair of all the other damage that has been caused. Is it possible to have a debate on this matter—in Government time, as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom—to discuss whether money could be made available to repair that damage?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. This is similar to what happens after severe winter weather, when potholes and other problems need to be dealt with. Last winter and the winter before that, some additional resources were found for local authorities to do that. He makes a good point, and I will raise the matter with the Department for Communities and Local Government, not least in order to see when it will be able to say something about those impacts. I hope that that will be helpful to my hon. Friend.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I am getting an increasing number of letters from disabled constituents who are terrified of the impact of the bedroom tax. There is a storm coming the Government’s way on the issue of benefit cuts. May I repeat my request to the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, with the Prime Minister present, so that we can hear about the horrendous impact of the bedroom tax on my constituents and on tens of thousands of other people around the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the simple fact that he and his colleagues keep repeating this does not make it so. Under the Labour Government, under-occupancy deductions were made in exactly the same way in relation to those in receipt of housing benefit in the private sector. Opposition Members have to understand two simple propositions. First, we have to save money. Secondly, there is under-occupancy in the social housing sector, as there was in the private rented sector. In order to gain the maximum benefit from the available social housing, we have to have incentives for the space to be best used.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

The findings of the Francis report were especially disturbing for my constituents, many of whom received terrible care at Stafford hospital, but the jobs merry-go-round is equally disturbing. For example, Helen Moss, the former director of nursing, who was in charge when care reached appalling standards, now works for Ernst and Young as a consultant. Her company has since won a contract to look at the financial viability of the Mid Staffs trust. May we have a debate on ending this shameful roundabout, where people get on, fail and then are moved somewhere else?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment directly on individuals, other than to say that—I think this is a matter of public record—although Helen Moss is working in a consultancy role, she is not working directly in relation to the Mid Staffs trust. I completely understand the general point, however. The Francis inquiry is continuing, and the Government will respond in due course, but while its report has clearly set out many of the central issues for the system as a whole, it was not asked to draw conclusions about the behaviour of individuals, and it did not do so. That is principally a matter for the professional regulatory bodies, of course, but this issue does raise the question of the place of managers in particular in a professional regulatory structure of that kind.

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

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 773? It has attracted the signatures of over 95 Members from seven political parties, including the coalition parties.

[That this House notes that the most significant development that has followed from the Government's healthcare reforms has been the 7 billion worth of new contracts being made available to the private health sector; further notes that at least five former advisers to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are now working for lobbying firms with private healthcare clients; recalls the Prime Minister's own reported remarks prior to the general election when he described lobbying as ‘the next big scandal waiting to happen'; recognises the growing scandal of the procurement model that favours the private health sector over the NHS, by allowing private companies to hide behind commercial confidentiality and which compromises the best practice aspirations of the public sector; condemns the practice of revolving doors, whereby Government health advisers move to lucrative contracts in the private healthcare sector, especially at a time when the privatisation of the NHS is proceeding by stealth; is deeply concerned at the unfair advantages being handed to private healthcare companies; and demands that in future all private healthcare companies be subject to freedom of information requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the same way as existing NHS public sector organisations.]

Given that £7 billion of NHS contracts is currently being tendered for, or has been awarded to, private sector health companies, may we have a debate on whether freedom of information requests should apply to private health companies bidding for NHS contracts that currently hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality?

[Mr Lansley]

Health questions will take place on the next sitting Tuesday. On public procurement and the need to audit public money, the Freedom of Information Act cannot at present reach wherever public money goes, but the transparency requirements set out in contracts enable there to be absolute clarity about the propriety and purposes of public funds used in procurement.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on food labelling for processed food? The horse scandal has shown that the labels on processed food throw mystery on where that food comes from, rather than provide enlightenment. We have an opportunity to get something positive from this scandal, by making sure that people recognise where their food comes from.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, and he will have heard the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who has responsibility for food and farming, say precisely that. The Minister agrees that we must make sure food labelling delivers to consumers the information they need. As I know from my experience, we are making good progress in respect of the nutritional content of food and helping people to construct a good diet, but the provenance, origin and composition of foods must also be made very clear. My ministerial colleagues have reported to the House on that, and I know they will find further opportunities to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

Unpaid carers provide vital care to frail, ill and disabled people, but thousands of them are being hit by the benefits cap and the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. Many will also be hit by the bedroom tax and the loss of council tax benefit, and we now find from the updated impact assessment for personal independence payments that 10,000 carers will lose their carers allowance and 5,000 fewer will qualify. May we have a debate on why this Government are hitting unpaid carers with their reforms, rather than exempting them?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady has to recognise, for example, that we specifically excluded carers from the constraint on the uprating of welfare benefit—recognising their role. The draft Care and Support Bill puts into statute for the first time specific support for carers, not least in respect of supporting their health.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House made a very wise suggestion earlier today—for Conservative Members to date a Liberal Democrat Member tonight. I pick the Deputy Prime Minister; who would my right hon. Friend choose?

[Mr Lansley]

I think I may have detected a somewhat different sense to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House than my hon. Friend has in his interpretation. I think that the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the House make a perfectly good team; that is how we regard ourselves for these purposes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will have heard the Chair of the Health Select Committee on the “Today” programme earlier today talking about gagging orders and the way in which they have been used in the health service. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate so that we can discuss making it a criminal offence to put a gagging order into a contract that is guaranteed to be against public safety?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be relevant to consider that matter when the House has an opportunity to debate the Francis inquiry. I did not hear the Chair of the Select Committee today, but when I was Secretary of State for Health, I made it very clear—and the chief executive of the NHS made it very clear—that gagging clauses would not be put into NHS contracts. We set that out. If I recall correctly—I will, of course, make sure it is corrected if I am wrong—the particular case that gave rise to this report related to a contract of employment and a gagging clause that was applied before the last election.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how Telford and Wrekin council consult local people on residential and retail development? In particular, we need to debate how the council is ignoring the concerns of Newport residents about the speed and size of applications both for housing and retail supermarket development in that ancient market town.

[Mr Lansley]

Local development framework consultation should explicitly allow for a response from local communities. In my experience, it can be buttressed by our new statutory provision for neighbourhood plans. I encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents to get together in Newport and look to providing a neighbourhood plan, which could entrench local views into the local planning framework.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the last two days, many of my constituents have been caught up in the extensive disruption on the Thameslink railway route. Could time be made available to discuss the problems on that line, particularly given that, in the light of the west coast main line debacle, the operator has been awarded a two and a half year contract to continue to run the franchise when it would otherwise have finished earlier?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might care to raise that matter at Transport questions, which I believe are on the Thursday of the week the House next sits. He will have seen the announcement on the Thameslink northern franchise, to which he referred. If I may, I will ask the Department for Transport whether there are any further issues arising out of recent problems and ask it to correspond with the hon. Gentleman and let me know the outcome.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Unemployment in the Vale of Glamorgan has fallen consistently over the last 12 months, and now stands at a rate of a little over 5%. For those people who remain unemployed, experience is an important attribute as they need it to try to get back into work. May we have a debate on the Government’s Work programme to clarify what was said in court this week, but also to underline the principle that for people who receive these sorts of benefits, experience can help them back into work?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether a debate will be possible in the near future, but I certainly think it is important for us to continue to support the principle, which I think the court did not contest, that it is right and proper for the Government, and in the interests of the unemployed, to ensure that people get back in the workplace, get that experience and do not lose contact with work. That is at the heart of the Work programme.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the management of special advisers? The Education Secretary has taken the unusual step of writing to the Education Committee in response to an invitation that he has not yet received, asking him why he did not know that one of his special advisers, Dominic Cummings, was one of those who were involved in a grievance procedure initiated by a member of staff which resulted in a £25,000 payout. Should the Secretary of State not know about such things going on in his Department, and does he not have a responsibility, under the Ministerial Code, to know what his spads are up to?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen the letter that my right hon. Friend sent to the Committee, and I think it perfectly reasonable for him to ensure that Select Committees are always given the relevant information at the earliest possible moment.

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

This is national heart month, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen Members wearing badges in recognition and support of it. Please may we have a debate about what is being done to support long-term funding of research on heart and circulatory diseases, and what is being done to help people take care of their own hearts?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen the badges. Indeed, there was a specific day on which I wore a British Heart Foundation badge myself.

Because the Government recognised its importance, we maintained the research budget, including the budget for the National Institute for Health Research. I believe that, in the last full year, the institute spent some £54 million on research on cardiovascular disease and strokes.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

My constituents and I continue to be frustrated by the continuing saga of the roadworks and speed restrictions on the M62 between Huddersfield and Leeds. This has been going on for many months. Will my right hon. Friend raise it urgently with the Secretary of State for Transport, and also find time for an urgent debate? The ever-increasing number of accidents and the ever-increasing congestion are affecting the whole west Yorkshire economy.

[Mr Lansley]

I have driven along that piece of road, and I know exactly what my hon. Friend is referring to. The matter is very important to his constituents and to others, and I will of course raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that efforts are being made to complete the work this year, and to do it as fast as possible, but I will encourage my right hon. Friend to say what can be done to ensure the best possible flow of traffic and maximum safety.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On 28 January, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), I was delighted to welcome the Secretary of State for Health to the excellent Airedale general hospital. Many Pendle residents use the hospital and the outside services that it provides. For example, telemedicine is used in a number of Pendle GP surgeries and in our nursing homes. May we have a debate on the potential benefits of telemedicine to the NHS, to ensure that they can be realised and that proper joined-up working can take place between doctors, the ambulance service and our local hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friends enjoyed my right hon. Friend’s visit to Airedale general hospital. I recall visiting the hospital myself and being very impressed with the work it was doing. When I was in Kirklees, I was also very impressed by a demonstration of what telehealth and telecare can achieve. A trial was completed which led to the launch of the “3 million lives” programme just over a year ago, which achieved a 45% reduction in mortality rates among those who were enrolled in the programme.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I reiterate the calls for a debate about Harold Wilson, and ask whether, in the event of such a debate, we would be allowed to refer to the fact that he smoked a pipe? It seems that the politically correct brigade at the BBC have decided to block out that fact, Soviet-style, for the purposes of the programme that they are making about him. Perhaps we could combine a debate about Harold Wilson with a debate about politically correct idiocy at the BBC.

[Mr Lansley]

I find it difficult to conceive of the possibility of a programme about Harold Wilson without his pipe. How would it explain how he gave himself time to think? I must say that I am not sure how he managed not to use his pipe at the Dispatch Box, given that it was such an integral part of his make-up.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Against the background of falling crime levels, a recent sharp increase in the number of burglaries in Kettering is cause for local concern. The Leader of the House will know that most burglars are already known to the police, and that most burglaries are carried out by burglars who are released too early from prison having not completed their sentences. May we have a joint statement by Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice about what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to tackle this most pernicious of crimes?

[Mr Lansley]

I have listened to what my hon. Friend says and, to be helpful, I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Home Office to reply, particularly on his local situation. If I recall correctly, they were saying that although there has been a reduction in crime, they have had a particular focus on the clear-up rates in relation to burglary. It is very important that they do that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the approach to care in the Staffordshire NHS cluster? My 22-year-old constituent, Thomas Berry, suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, which means that he cannot do very much for himself, but the cluster wants to change his care plan, against his wishes, the wishes of his carers and the advice of his doctor. That could have a material impact on his health, yet the cluster is not even able to tell me whether it thinks it might have an impact on his health. May we have a statement so that we can question Staffordshire’s approach to care, including the apparent refusal of the chief executive and the head of continuing care to answer MPs’ questions adequately?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the chief executive of the Staffordshire primary care trust cluster would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter, if it would be helpful. Obviously I cannot enter into a discussion about his constituent, but the general point he makes is that the whole object of care plans is for them to be agreed between the patient, their family and their clinicians.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, a conflict that saw the loss of many British service personnel and more than half a million Iraqis killed. There are still unanswered questions about the legality of the war, so will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate on this important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a point that I know has been raised with the Backbench Business Committee. I think we should particularly commemorate this anniversary and remember the loss of life, particularly our own dead and injured. I think that the Government should look to the Chilcot inquiry as the basis on which this House should then consider the lessons to be learned.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May we have a debate about the merits of introducing financial incentives to UK whistleblowing legislation? Such incentives are in place in the United States, where its Treasury makes a fortune as a result. If we had them here, be they in respect of health, banking or other sectors of our economy, more people would step forward and indicate where malpractice is taking place.

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, I am familiar, to some extent, with the fact that there are incentives for whistleblowers in financial services in America, but I did not know that they extended any further than that. In a number of contexts, we want to ensure, in particular, that there are no disincentives, but we also want to ensure that there are clear incentives for people to be whistleblowers, where that is appropriate.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituents from the Wilton community land trust were delighted to have the opportunity, finally, to bid for the Ministry of Defence site at the Erskine barracks. However, they were somewhat dismayed by the lack of provision in the tendering document for communities’ views to be taken into account. May I reiterate the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the MOD to make a statement on how it is going to listen to community groups when disposing of its assets?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North earlier, but it is important, in any set of circumstances where disposal is being taken forward, for the local councils and the partners to engage fully with the local community. I hope that that is the practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), too.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Many of my constituents will welcome the fact that this week the Government have taken an important step forward by committing to support people with their care costs where they have assets of up to £123,000, as opposed to the current limit of £23,000. Will my right hon. Friend schedule a debate on this issue, which is extremely important in respect of fairness, particularly for those who have saved hard and done the right thing for their retirement?

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was able to make a statement at the beginning of the week on the response to Andrew Dilnot’s commission, which I had the privilege of establishing. The relevant provisions are the subject of a further representation to the Joint Committee considering the draft Care and Support Bill and I hope that that will enable the House in due course to see the measures taken forward as rapidly as possible.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that one of the successes of the coalition Government has been the provision of a proper framework for post offices so that they can feel secure, modernise and serve their rural communities? In my constituency, many post offices have felt a huge benefit from that support, in complete contrast to the closure programme under the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Lord Privy Seal is very much in agreement with him. There will not be any repeat of the closure programme that we saw under the previous Government, which I experienced in my constituency and he no doubt did in his. We are committed to maintaining a network of 11,500 branches, with £1.3 billion of funding to support that during the spending review period. By 2015, at least half of those branches will have been modernised as he describes.

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

There are concerns in my constituency about the mortality rates at the local hospital, which will now be investigated by the NHS Commissioning Board. Will the Leader of the House allow an urgent debate on how we can improve such hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that I visited Medway hospital. It is very important that we recognise that when there is a significant deviation from the standardised mortality data and too high a level of apparent mortality is recorded that is an indicator that should be acted upon and is not in itself evidence of poor care. From the point of view of the Department and the Care Quality Commission, one of the lessons from Mid Staffs was that indicators, alarm bells, smoke alarms or whatever we might call them should never be ignored. I hope that we will see determination to act on any evidence but not to jump to any conclusions.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 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 11 February—I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on the local government finance settlement for rural local authorities. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 12 February—Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day]. First part, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on education. Second part, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on infrastructure.

Wednesday 13 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports, followed by motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2013 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2013.

Thursday 14 February—Debate on a motion on protecting future generations from violence against women and girls, followed by general debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The business for the following sitting week will include:

Monday 25 February—Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House. Yesterday a number of supermarkets and suppliers withdrew ready meals because of concerns about contaminated meat and adulteration. There is growing concern about this issue and consumers are rightly worried and want reassurances, yet the Government appear to be slow to react. Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on this matter by a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

On Tuesday, the Lords accepted amendments to the Defamation Bill that included plans for a new arbitration service to hear libel cases, along the lines of the recommendations of Lord Leveson. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at those who voted for the amendment? This week’s alternative coalition included Lord Fowler, Lord Hurd, Lord Ashcroft and the Prime Minister’s father-in-law, Lord Astor. Half of the Conservative party voting against him on equal marriage is one thing, but now the Prime Minister cannot even persuade his own father-in-law to vote for the Government. Tuesday’s vote showed that there is cross-party agreement on the need to implement Lord Leveson’s recommendations, to ensure that the suffering of the Dowlers and the McCanns will never be repeated. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the legislation will be returning to this House for Members to consider? Will he undertake to ensure, when it does, that he will keep within the spirit of that cross-party agreement and not seek to rupture it?

Yesterday, astonishingly, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government’s taxes and benefits were progressive. On that very day, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies claimed that the tax changes being introduced this April were regressive, with the richest tenth gaining the most while the bottom 50 % lose. At the same time, the IFS warned that the social security bill was going up and that borrowing was going to overshoot by £64 billion. The reason is that the Government’s economic strategy is failing. May we have a statement from the Chancellor, ahead of his Budget?

Yesterday, the motion on the Order Paper from the Leader of the House that the House should sit on Friday 22 March was objected to. It is not immediately apparent why Government business managers need the House to sit on that day, so will he explain that in his reply? The Government’s legislative programme is hardly packed, so that cannot be the reason. I wondered whether, after last year’s omnishambles Budget, the business managers might have been planning an extra day of debate to give the Chancellor room to perform a few U-turns. An extra sitting day on the Friday would, of course, enable the House to rise on the Tuesday, meaning, conveniently, that the Prime Minister could once again miss Prime Minister’s questions. Given the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, it is little wonder that the Prime Minister wants to duck out of PMQs after the Budget. Will the Leader of the House now think again about that Friday sitting, given that it is a day on which many MPs will already have constituency engagements?

The Daily Mail reported yesterday that the Prime Minister recently spoke in the ballroom of the Hurlingham Club, where

“the Dom Perignon flowed like water at £100 a bottle”

and

“ordinary club members complained about being unable to get in the entrance because of all the Rolls-Royces and Daimlers clogging the drive”.

In that rarefied environment, did the Prime Minister really make a speech about how the Conservatives had

“modernised and were no longer the party of privilege”?

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team who found the remains of Richard III? He was only in charge of this country for two years, and he was of course the first leader of the country to lose his horse and get stabbed in the back. The Prime Minister has already lost the horse lent to him by Rebekah Brooks, and he has found a stalking horse in the form of the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). And as for being stabbed in the back—well, it is no wonder that the Education Secretary is so keen on the history of our kings and queens.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her questions. I thanked her and her colleagues at business questions last week for having announced the subject for the Opposition day debate prior to that, and I thank her again today for having ensured that I was able to announce the Opposition day business for next week. I appreciate that.

The hon. Lady asked me a question last week during the debate on the effectiveness of Select Committees, but I did not have the relevant figures in front of me at the time. She sought the publication of more Bills in draft. I can confirm that, in the last Session, we published more Bills in draft—13 Bills—than in any previous Session under the last Government.

[Ms Eagle]

A two-year Session.

[Mr Lansley]

The shadow Leader says that it was a two-year Session, so I am happy to be able to tell her that in this Session, which is not a two-year Session, we have thus far published 10 Bills in draft, and I am hopeful that before the Session is ended, we will match the record of the previous Session.

The shadow Leader of the House asked me about my colleagues at DEFRA. As she will know—there was an equine theme to her questions—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Come on—get a move on. If not a gallop, at least a canter.—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There should be no chuntering from a sedentary position. Less of the wit or attempted wit.

[Mr Lansley]

That was not even an attempt to be funny. I will talk to my colleagues in DEFRA and in the Department of Health, which is responsible for the Food Standards Agency and has given evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I will ask them to ensure that the House is kept up to date. Following previous business questions, I will ensure, too, that before the House rises for the short recess next Thursday, we are updated in respect of the situation in Mali by means of a written ministerial statement.

The hon. Lady asked about the timetable for the Defamation Bill. That is a matter for the other place, although I understand that it is intended that Third Reading there will take place on 25 February. It will, of course, arrive here thereafter. The hon. Lady will recall that in that debate in the other place, my noble Friend Lord McNally made it clear that we expect to be able to publish proposals relating to the response of the Leveson recommendations in the course of next week. We are doing so actively on a cross-party basis. It is precisely because we want to secure cross-party agreement that we are acting together in that way. To that extent, the amendment passed in the other place was clearly premature. I hope that, when people see the proposals as they come forward, they will recognise that we are actively seeking to ensure that we achieve the recommendations and principles set out in Lord Leveson’s report, albeit in a way that continues to respect the need for a press free from political interference.

Curiously, the shadow Leader seemed to ask me to seek from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Budget statement prior to the Budget statement. We will settle for one Budget statement; that will be more than enough. It will give the Chancellor the opportunity to reinforce the simple fact that we in this country have credibility behind our fiscal stance and, indeed, our monetary policies. The new Governor of the Bank of England is giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee right now, but we all know from what was said by the OECD and others internationally that the commitment of this coalition Government to the reduction of the structural deficit and to the achievement of fiscal consolidation has allowed for our active monetary policy, notwithstanding the international pressures, and has gained us the credibility that has clearly contributed to the confidence that has brought 1 million more jobs since the election and low interest rates, which are of central importance, not least to mortgage holders.

The hon. Lady might have explained the Labour party’s policy to colleagues—a confused complaint about borrowing yet wanting to borrow more—but it was responsible for the most appalling inheritance of debt.

The hon. Lady asked about last night’s motion on the sitting of the House on 22 March. The reasoning is very straightforward. There is a calendar—the House has welcomed this fact—that has allowed Members and the House service to plan ahead. The calendar was very clear that the House would rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 27 March—I hope that date is right—and colleagues will have planned on that basis. Following the Budget on 20 March, accommodating both the requirements of the Budget debate and the needs of the Backbench Business Committee for a pre-recess Adjournment debate will require the House to sit on 22 March. I hope Members will recognise that that is for the benefit of the House, enabling business to be secured, including Back-Bench business.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating the archaeological team from the university of Leicester. Let me add, on a personal note, that I remember visiting the archaeological team with my daughter. She subsequently went to Southampton university, but at that time she was considering reading archaeology at Leciester, and perhaps she now regrets not having done so.

It will, of course, be a matter for the university of Leicester, in due course, to deal with the question of the re-interment of Richard III, but, like the shadow Leader of the House, I hope that the interest generated by the discovery of his remains will enable those who are interested in the history of this country—not least young people—to recognise what a significant date 1485 was in that history.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House continues to take an interest in that issue, as it did yesterday. I heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say that the consultation period had been extended, and that the promoters of the four private Bills were well aware of that and were able to accommodate it in relation to their Bills. I am sure that the House will have an opportunity to ask questions about the matter—perhaps during the next session of questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, which might correspond with the timetable.

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

Today’s Hull Daily Mail reports that Peter Del Grosso, a former rogue wheel-clamper with a recent criminal conviction for racially aggravated assault, is now a legally registered parking ticketer. Given Labour’s warning, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, that that would happen, may we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the effectiveness of the coalition’s legislation on the issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I should be happy to ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport about the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised, but I think that, in general, it should be recognised that the coalition Government have achieved a £3.3 billion reduction in cumulative regulation costs since the election. One cannot wish for growth and at the same time continue, as the last Government did, with the constantly accumulating cost of regulation.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes sobering reading. It emphasises the need to continue to control public spending. May we have a full day’s debate on the economy? Given that there are only about two years to go before the general election, and given that the Opposition have so far failed to support a single public spending cut or endorse a single welfare reform, the nation is entitled to be able to consider in some detail how both we and the Opposition are to address control of the nation’s public finances in a responsible manner.

[Mr Lansley]

We made an additional day available for a debate on the economy following the autumn statement, and we do not have long to wait until the Budget and the debates that will follow it. However, my hon. Friend has made some good points. Control of public spending is integral to our economy. If we did not control our spending, we would lose credibility. There would be a risk of a rise in interest rates, and a significant risk of our losing the international confidence and credibility that we currently command. The Government have maintained that spending control: we have consistently met the target in the spending plans that we have set out, or even achieved a reduction below that level.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on how foreign companies can be prevented from buying British companies and then closing them after a short period of time after removing their assets and sending them to China? Some 80 jobs in my constituency are currently under threat because of that, and it is not the first time this has happened in the Govan area in recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady knows, it is never easy to reconcile oneself to these things, but we live in an international marketplace. We need to win in what is a global race and, frankly, the capacity of investors to invest in this country is integral to that, and to the free movement of capital across the world. We benefit from that free movement of capital, not least in terms of inward investment, but sometimes it has a downside as well.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

The Pennine Sailing Club and the Valley Bowmen of Huddersfield archery club in my constituency recently each got £50,000 of Olympic legacy lottery funding. May we have a debate on the success of the national lottery, and can we also help our constituents and community groups navigate their way through the myriad funding schemes so they can benefit our local communities?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that, and I am sure the Pennine Sailing Club and the Valley Bowmen of Huddersfield archery club are very deserving recipients of lottery funding support. Some 400,000 groups and organisations across the country have now benefited from lottery funding since the lottery was established in 1994. There are some very good mechanisms for organisations to access lottery funding, including the funding search tool at lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/funding.

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

At yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions it was clear that the Prime Minister had no idea about the implications of his bedroom tax. May we have an urgent debate on that, so the Prime Minister can get up to speed?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, the Prime Minister absolutely understood that housing benefit has risen dramatically and that it is essential to control it. He was absolutely clear, too, that under the last Labour Government the kind of rules that were applied to social housing had been applied to private rented accommodation, and that raises the question of why there should be a difference. He was also very clear that, as resources are finite in the current circumstances, we should ask why we are funding almost 1 million unused bedrooms in the social housing sector when there are 1.8 million people on the social housing waiting list.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the negative role of parasitic agents in professional football?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and many other Members have, over quite some time, raised the question of football governance. I will discuss the possibility of holding a debate on the subject with colleagues, although I am unsure which mechanism might be used—perhaps the Backbench Business Committee. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on football governance is a good starting point for moving on to consider when the House might look at these issues more generally.

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

Targets to reduce the number of people being killed and seriously injured on our roads served the country very well for over 30 years. In 2010, the then Transport Secretary abolished targets. The new Secretary of State has introduced forecasts. May we have a debate on road safety in general, in which we might clarify the difference between targets and forecasts—or, indeed, if there is any difference at all?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters, and I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to respond to his question. What I will say, however, is that we are looking for outcomes, and what really matters is finding the mechanisms that enable us to improve road safety.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Harrow council tops the league for both the number of staff suspended and the length of time for which they have been suspended. One member of staff has been suspended for two and a half years on full pay. The council has also refused £3.6 million in Government grant to freeze the council tax, preferring to raise it to the third highest in London. May we have a debate on inefficiency and ineffectiveness in local government?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes important points relating to his constituency and local authority. If he catches your eye, Mr Speaker, in the debate on the local authority finance report, he will have the opportunity to raise the issue of securing value for money in his constituency and others.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware—he will not be, but I will ask him anyway—that at 9.30 this morning, the Post Office announced that it will be seeking franchisees for 50 Crown offices across all the constituencies in the UK? I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about that as he was leaving the House this morning, and it appears the Post Office did not tell him about the announcement. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on what the Post Office is up to, where the Crown offices in question are, what will happen if a franchisee cannot be found, and the impact this will have on the Government’s promise to seek a mutual arrangement for the future of the Post Office?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman correctly understands that he could have raised these matters during BIS questions—

[Michael Connarty]

I was not called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. He is a good-humoured fellow.

[Mr Lansley]

I am accustomed to questions to me being described colloquially as “poor man’s Prime Minister’s questions”; I did not realise they had become “poor man’s BIS questions”, as well—perhaps poor man’s every kind of question.

I will secure an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question from my ministerial colleagues. However, we are very clear—in contrast with the record of the last Labour Government—that there will be no programme of post office closures under this Government. I have seen in my own constituency the confidence that gives, particularly to villages where post offices have temporarily shut down.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Virtually every week, I read in my local papers the Bradford Telegraph & Argus and the Yorkshire Post about serious offenders having been brought to justice through advances in DNA testing and the use of the DNA database. Extraordinarily, however, this Government seem to think that there are far too many people on the database and are trying to find ways to take them off it. May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the DNA database in bringing serious offenders to justice, and how we should use it to maximum effect to help the police bring them to justice?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend addresses a very important point, which we understand: the need for effective use of the latest forensic techniques to enable us to tackle crime; but at the same time, the need to respect civil liberties and people’s right for their DNA, which can be acquired in a range of circumstances, not to be held where there is no good reason for the authorities to retain it. The balance between those two issues has been discussed, but my Home Office colleagues will be happy to discuss the issue again and answer questions in future.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions on its promise to give £8 million to redundant Remploy workers to get them back into work, and to give them benefit advice? To date, there is little evidence of any of that money reaching the people it is supposed to reach. A statement would help to clarify where their money is and how it is being used.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall, as I do, that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), referred to this issue when she was here answering related questions. I will encourage her to identify an opportunity, at Work and Pensions questions or before, to update the House on the redundancy arrangements for Remploy workers.

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

May I congratulate the Chair on invoking Standing Order No. 40 last night, which I think we all enjoyed, thus expediting a whole series of votes called by only a dozen or so Members? Some of them seemed to take sport in delaying the passage of Bills against the will of the House. This has affected the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, costing the council hundreds of thousands of pounds and delaying the Bill for about three years. May I therefore ask for an urgent review of the voting process for private Bills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I never fail to be impressed by the judgment of the Chair on these matters, but the Chair, like all of us, works within the Standing Orders of the House. If my hon. Friend feels that the procedure of this House requires a change, I would encourage him to address his points, along with his evidence, to the Procedure Committee.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May I press the Leader of the House again on the urgent need for us to have a debate on the bedroom tax when the Prime Minister is present? He needs to understand the disastrous consequences he is inflicting on thousands upon thousands of people in this country, particularly those in my constituency; I receive letters by the day telling me about the consequences of this decision.

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate the points I made to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), but I just say to the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday about the necessity of this measure. I do not hear, nor did we hear yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, any explanation from the Labour party as to how it proposes to meet the financial requirement that we have to control expenditure. Labour Members are occasionally free in debates to say, “Oh yes, we must control expenditure” but they have resisted every measure that has been introduced, be it on welfare, on the benefit cap, on housing benefit or on other things. They must understand that they cannot criticise in circumstances where they do not have a credible alternative.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on the publication of the Francis report, will the Government make time for a full debate in this Chamber, so that MPs from all parts of the House can discuss the report and its conclusions?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be very concerned to ensure that the report is fully debated, and he may know that a number of Staffordshire MPs have sought a debate through the Backbench Business Committee. The Committee will consider that request and I will be happy to understand in due course whether the Committee can accommodate such a debate.

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

In a particularly callous move, the Foreign Office has withdrawn concessionary visa arrangements for children from Chernobyl, thus depriving many of an opportunity to receive respite and to boost their immune system in constituencies such as mine. May we have a debate about how the Foreign Office decides on these concessionary visa arrangements, so that we can try to persuade the relevant Minister to change his mind about this appalling decision?

[Mr Lansley]

From memory—obviously I will correct this if I am wrong—Ministers at the Foreign Office have met representatives who are seeking these concessionary visa arrangements. I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed about the result of those discussions, but I am not aware that I will, before Foreign Office questions, have a likelihood of being able to ask that question directly.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

If the Backbench Business Committee is good enough to grant a debate on the scandal at Stafford hospital, will my right hon. Friend avoid arranging any Government statements for that day, so that we can have a full debate about the implications of the Francis report? After what we learned yesterday about the culture of box-ticking managerialism at the hospital, it seems to me that those people who close their eyes to reform of the NHS should open them and let us get on with it.

[Mr Lansley]

Of course my hon. Friend understands that we always endeavour to keep the House fully informed of announcements of Government policy, through the means of statements, and to seek not to impede the business of the House. That always involves a balance, and we will endeavour to strike it well. I understand his point that many Members, understandably, feel strongly about what Robert Francis had to say in his report. I feel strongly about it, because it demonstrates that appointing Robert Francis to undertake that public inquiry was absolutely the right thing to do. It also points clearly to the kind of changes in culture and behaviour that the NHS needs now and has needed for a long time. This is not about the structures, because in the course of the past two and half years we in this House have given the NHS the structures it needs. In the introduction to his report, Robert Francis makes it clear that we now need to achieve those culture changes within the structure of the new reforms and they can be achieved in that way.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Would it not be a really sneaky trick for the House not to sit on the Wednesday after the Budget? It would mean that the Prime Minister would not be able to answer in relation to the Budget for four full weeks, by which time, if last year’s Budget is anything to go by, nearly every element of it will have been undone. The Prime Minister would then have to do a massive mea culpa and apologise to everybody for having misled them all the way along for four weeks. Would it not be better to sit on the Wednesday or for the Prime Minister to lead the debate on the second day?

[Mr Lansley]

I published the calendar for the House last October. It set out very clearly, to correct what I said earlier, that Tuesday 26 March was to be the day on which the House would rise. It is perfectly possible for the business of the House to be accommodated by that date, but we must sit on the Friday for that to happen.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the comments made by the Leader of the House a few minutes ago in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), there is an evident lack of democratic accountability in the national health service. I am sure that all Members have come up against those barriers at various times. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that when we come to debate the Francis report my hon. Friend and others will be able to make many points, including that one. I draw his attention to the simple fact that the implementation this year of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will give local authorities much stronger powers through the health and wellbeing boards to ensure that commissioning is agreed with the local authority and democratically elected representatives, as well as direct powers to fashion a public health improvement plan for their area.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the deployment of British troops in Mali and north Africa and he promised me that the House would be kept updated. I raised the question again yesterday on a point of order following the Prime Minister’s extensive visit to the area last weekend and apparently all we will get is a written statement. That is not good enough and is not acceptable. We need a full statement and a full debate on the significant deployment of British troops in that area, which might last for a very long time and should be of great concern to everybody in this House. I ask him again: may we have a debate with a votable motion so that we can discuss the situation and the long-term objectives of the British deployment?

[Mr Lansley]

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s point of order yesterday and I will reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House earlier: I and my colleagues will ensure that there is a report to the House next week before the House rises. I will not reiterate all that I said last week, but we continue to look carefully to ensure that we meet fully the convention that before there is a commitment of our armed forces to conflict and combat for any substantial period, when it is not an emergency, this House should have the opportunity to debate that. As the hon. Gentleman understands from what I said previously, this involvement has an urgent character but it is not the Government’s intention or plan to commit our forces to combat and conflict.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the income tax threshold, lowered corporation tax, worked with local authorities to freeze council tax for the third year and scrapped Labour’s fuel duty escalator. A report earlier this week said that if we were to abandon air passenger duty we could increase economic activity by £18 billion a year and increase GDP by 0.46%. May we therefore have a debate on how tax reductions can stimulate the economy further?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand that the level of tax must be set in a way that optimises revenue while minimising the adverse impact on economic performance. That is a constant effort on the part of the Treasury, and it is one reason—this is not specifically related to air passenger duty—why reducing the top rate of tax to 45p makes good economic sense as well as revenue sense. That has been done in the context of completely understanding, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has agreed in its analysis, that following the Government’s tax changes the wealthiest 10% are making the greatest contribution to meeting our requirement for fiscal consolidation.

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

I make no apology for raising this matter as a business question—I tried to raise it at Prime Minister’s questions and during topical questions today, and I arrived early on both occasions. The Leader of the House has said how passionate he is about global capitalism and free markets, but media ownership is a different question. We have had no statement, and I think we should have a statement or a debate, on the fact that Virgin Media might be taken over by an eccentric American oligarch. That means that two major American companies, led by rather strange characters, will own our media empire. When will we have a statement about that threat to our media?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman shares my belief that if we are to be competent and create wealth, we must be prepared to understand that we do so in a global marketplace and there are capital and investment consequences from which we will benefit. But he should not confuse that with a belief that competition and rigorous competition authorities are essential to make that happen. I will take no lessons in relation to that because as a Back Bencher I wrote, together with the noble Lord Puttnam, the provisions that were put into the Communications Bill to apply a public interest test to media mergers.

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

May we have a statement on the repeated Spanish military incursions into British waters off Gibraltar, and an opportunity for us to pass on our thoughts to the Government on how robust the British response should be?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course be glad to see if there is anything further that needs to be said to my hon. Friend in relation to these matters. I answered questions in the latter part of November, I believe, relating to Spanish incursions and made it very clear that we would not allow those to impinge in any way on the integrity of the position of Gibraltar.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Royal College of Physicians says that by 2050 half the population will be obese, at a cost of £5 billion to the NHS. May we have a debate on how to deal with this public health time bomb?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that, if time allows, it would be helpful to debate that issue. We must understand, however, that it is not just a matter of childhood obesity. Most of the people who will be obese by 2050 are already adults, so we cannot solve the problem by tackling childhood obesity alone. It is adults who must take responsibility, but we must understand that at the same time as we do all the things that we are doing—calorie labelling, calorie reduction, getting rid of artificial trans fats, reducing saturated fats—people need community support and opportunities to get more exercise and to make better decisions. Features such as front-of-pack labelling give them that opportunity, but they must be willing to take it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May we have a debate about Leicester’s historically dodgy, bogus and arrogant claim on Richard III and why north Yorkshire is the only place that he should be returned to, according to his wishes?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that the legal position is straightforward. The licence gives to the university of Leicester an obligation, but also discretion as to the choice of location for the interment of Richard III’s remains, but there will be other claims. I completely understand the claims of both Westminster abbey in relation to the burial of Anne Neville, and York minster.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

We need an urgent debate on the bedroom tax and particularly the exemptions. I have a constituent who is a foster carer and who needs the extra bedroom. She provides a service for vulnerable children and she should not be penalised for that.

[Mr Lansley]

The deductions from housing benefit were explained by the Prime Minister yesterday, and I have heard them being explained very carefully to the House previously. The hon. Lady should understand that in addition, as the Prime Minister said again yesterday, resources are provided to meet the specific requirements she raises and local authorities can respond to such circumstances.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On 29 January, Mary Portas visited the town of Nelson in my constituency following the Government’s decision in May to designate it a Mary Portas pilot town and to give it £100,000 to revitalise its high street. May we have a debate on the excellent Portas pilots and what the Government can do to breathe life back into our high streets and town centres?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the Portas pilots. The funding of £2.3 million is only one little part of the effort that it has enabled. The multiplier effect in high streets is very important, including on those beyond the Portas pilots. It might be a slight contrivance to extend next week’s debate on local government finance to discuss the matter, but I hope that it might be one mechanism used to illustrate how local authorities can use resources effectively to generate economic activity.

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

You will remember, Mr Speaker, that I have raised the idea of Bob Dylan coming to Swansea to play at a centenary Dylan Thomas concert in 2014. Well, the times they are a-changing, and I have had a letter from Bob Dylan’s manager to say that he would prefer to perform in the summer in case of inclement weather. I wonder whether the Leader of the House would find time, as the House’s “Mr Tambourine Man”, to come to the concert and, more importantly, timetable a debate in this House before 2014 on cultural and literary icons of the UK and Wales.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I must say, though, that I am surprised by what he says, since I have understood from him that the sun always shines in Swansea.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), may I ask, as a proud Yorkshireman and a York MP, for a debate on returning Richard III, the last king of the House of York, to his rightful resting place—the great city of York?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). The claims are there, but the law is very clear.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In business questions in May, I raised the scandal of Criminal Records Bureau checks blighting the lives of tens of thousands of people years, or even decades, after conviction, or even cautions for minor offences or misdemeanours. The Leader of the House’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was graciously helpful, the Home Office less so. In the autumn, the exclusions from the police commissioner elections highlighted how absurd and outrageous this practice is. The High Court has now told the Home Secretary to think again about CRB checks. May we have a debate in which the Home Secretary can explain why she stubbornly refuses to correct this gross injustice?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will be aware of the recent High Court case. The Government must recognise our responsibility to ensure that CRB checks are thorough and comprehensive. We are directing them towards jobs with access to children and vulnerable adults where the vulnerability is real and the need for confidence is absolute. Having said that, the Home Office will respond in due course, and the right hon. Gentleman might like to think about raising the matter in Home Office questions on Monday.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

On Christmas day in 2011, my constituent Khuram Sheikh, a Red Cross worker, was brutally murdered in Sri Lanka. Since then, the justice system in that country has moved exceptionally slowly. I met his family just before Christmas, and they are still mourning. Foreign Office Ministers are putting pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, but still more needs to be done. A parliamentary debate on the failure of the Sri Lankan justice system would be very welcome.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituent’s family circumstances. Foreign Office questions are on 5 March, and he might like to consider raising the matter then. Alternatively, Members often think that an Adjournment debate on such circumstances might be appropriate.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On 4 December, I tabled a round robin question asking each Department how many computers, mobile telephones, BlackBerries and other pieces of IT equipment had been lost. I have received answers from every Department —very interesting they are too—apart from the Cabinet Office. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to get me an answer, bearing in mind that I also tabled a named day question on 16 January and have not had an answer to that either?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House knows that I am anxious to ensure that we are always timely in our answers to questions, and I will endeavour to secure an answer for the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s alleged answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), will he arrange a seminar for all Ministers to explain the precise meaning of the word “question”, the precise meaning of the word “answer”, and the need for a link between the two?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not organise such a seminar because I think that that is understood by Ministers.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Last month in Education questions, I raised with the Secretary of State the latest delay to the rebuilding of Hetton school in my constituency due to Government financing issues. Will the Leader of the House impress upon his ministerial colleague the urgency of that matter because I am yet to receive a response?

[Mr Lansley]

I will seek a response from my right hon. Friend. The Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) is on the Front Bench and will, no doubt, have heard that question.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the best use to which the Government can put the rather hefty fines that some banks are paying over the manipulation of LIBOR? Do the Government agree that it would be a good idea to transfer that money to the new green investment bank in Edinburgh?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would agree that the fines have so far been used very well in support of the military covenant. However, I will raise his suggestion with Treasury colleagues.

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

Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the effects of the bedroom tax in Glasgow? Is he aware that the tax will remove £18 million a year from the Glasgow economy, cost 202 jobs and reduce wages by £5.3 million? Do we not need a debate to expose the tax as not just socially brutal, but economically disastrous?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate what I have said. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that to meet our requirement to reduce the deficit that we inherited from the last Government, we inevitably have to make decisions, including decisions about the level of benefits. As he knows full well, when 1.8 million people are seeking accommodation in social housing, the fact that there are nearly 1 million underused bedrooms across the country must be factored into how we constrain housing benefit expenditure.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Last year, G4S secured the contract to service court buildings. It is now drastically cutting the hours of cleaning staff and making them redundant. May we have a debate on introducing plain English into written parliamentary answers, because it is not clear from the slippery replies that I have received so far from the Ministry of Justice whether that is being done as part of the MOJ contract or whether low-paid, part-time workers are paying the price for another G4S miscalculation?

[Mr Lansley]

I have always been a devotee of Sir Ernest Gowers’s pursuit of plain English. I will endeavour to ensure that I and my colleagues meet those kinds of strictures.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

On Richard III, the case for Leicester is overwhelming, so hands off, York! I ask the Leader of the House to really think about holding a debate on the bedroom tax. When that policy was debated in Westminster Hall recently, no Government Back Bencher turned up to defend it. Given that it will affect so many vulnerable and disabled people, Opposition Members are keen to hear from the Government how it can possibly be described as fair.

[Mr Lansley]

I have made it absolutely clear, as did the Prime Minister yesterday rather better than I could, that we must meet the requirement to control the ballooning housing benefit expenditure left by the last Government. The Labour party have resisted every effort to do so. When there is unused accommodation in the social housing estate, it is important for there to be incentives for it to be better used. There are nearly 1 million unused bedrooms. It is not a tax; it is a deduction in housing benefit expenditure. Many of the examples that have been presented by Opposition Members completely ignore the fact that there are other deductions in housing benefit expenditure, particularly in relation to private rented housing, which demonstrate that Labour always accepted this as an argument.