Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 4 February—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 5 February—Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Wednesday 6 February—Opposition day [16th allotted day] (first part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party on suicide prevention in the UK, followed by consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Thursday 7 February—Debate on a motion relating to subsidies for new nuclear power, followed by general debate on the closure of A and E departments. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 11 February—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]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

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.

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

Thursday 7 February—Debate on the Environmental Audit Committee report on Protecting the Arctic, followed by debate on the Defence Committee report on Future of Maritime Surveillance.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting an urgent question on Tuesday to the Defence Secretary. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) said, we support the decision to send troops to Mali and neighbouring countries to help to train the Malian army, but the deployment of troops to conflict areas raises important issues on which Members wanted to question the Defence Secretary. It should not have taken an urgent question to force the Defence Secretary to the House. It is not the first time that an urgent question has been necessary to get the Defence Secretary to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on important matters concerning our armed services. Will the Leader of the House therefore undertake that in future, while our armed forces are deployed, the Defence Secretary will keep the House regularly updated without being forced to do so? Will the Leader of the House now agree to a general debate on the developing situation in north Africa?

Last Friday’s GDP figures were terrible. After two and a half years in government, the Chancellor has presided over a double-dip recession and a flatlining economy. Once again on the part-time Chancellor’s watch, the economy is contracting. We warned that the Government’s economic strategy—if one can call it that—was damaging the economy: they cut too far and too fast. The Deputy Prime Minister has popped up to attack his own Government’s record of cutting infrastructure expenditure. It is a bit late to be saying so, since his party voted for each and every cut. While the economy has nose-dived, the part-time Chancellor has been filling up his time with pizzas in Davos, and not one but two dinners with Rupert Murdoch. With all these dinners, I fear that the only thing now growing is the Chancellor’s waistline.

With bankers lining up to pay themselves massive bonuses over the forthcoming weeks, may we have an urgent statement from the Business Secretary on what the Government are going to do to stop this abuse?

We welcome the cross-party decision on Tuesday on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. The Conservative party’s attempt to gerrymander parliamentary boundaries was rejected by Members across the House from all political parties—an alternative coalition, one might call it. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has returned to his rightful role after subbing for the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) in that debate, for reasons that were somewhat opaque. None the less, we enjoyed his performance on a sticky wicket.

The Leader of the House will have heard in Tuesday’s debate the clamour among those on the Conservative Back Benches to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister, who was strangely absent from the proceedings. It is not very often that the Leader of the House’s Back Benchers want to hear from the Liberal Democrat leader. Given the demand, will he arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement? I think we would all enjoy that.

Relate tells us that January is the month in which couples are most likely to break up, so may I congratulate the coalition on managing to get through it? [Interruption.] Just—there is one day left.

Last weekend I was troubled to read not about coalition tensions but about tensions within the Conservative party. There was even the suggestion of a plot to depose the Prime Minister. I do not know where the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is today; perhaps the Chief Whip could tell us. The way things are going, we do not want to lose the Prime Minister and his chums, so may we have a debate on Government leadership to give the hon. Member for Windsor the opportunity to share with the House the qualities he thinks he has to lead the country?

I have been looking at the voting records in Hansard. What we have learned this week is that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), managed to vote both for and against the Succession to the Crown Bill. She then failed to participate in the boundaries vote on any side, so engrossed was she in meeting Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty. She was not the only Conservative Minister to miss Tuesday’s crucial vote. In a brilliant whipping operation, the Foreign Secretary decided that he would rather have dinner in Washington than vote in the House. You would have thought, Mr Speaker, that the Cabinet was a dining society given the number of dinners that Ministers are having. Can’t vote, forgets to vote, can’t be bothered to turn up—what a shambles!

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I think she asked one question relating specifically to future business.

Of course, it is absolutely our intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the House should be regularly and appropriately informed about our engagement in Mali and in north-west Africa. On the issue of a statement or an urgent question, the circumstances were that EU agreement had not yet been reached on the EU training mission, and in my colleague’s mind was the intention to update the House in the light of the EU training mission as well as the bilateral agreements that were entered into. I make no bones about that—it was absolutely fine for the urgent question to be responded to and we will keep the House informed. I cannot promise an oral statement in every case, for reasons of the progress of business, but I am sure we will keep the House fully informed through a combination of written ministerial statements, oral statements and answers to questions.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. It is interesting—the Leader of the Opposition made almost exactly the same point yesterday—that the Opposition try to argue that the economy requires the Government to spend more money, but complain, at one and the same time, that the Government are borrowing too much. They cannot have it both ways. They have to decide. Not only does their position represent utter confusion on the part of the Labour party, but, to be frank, it carries no credibility outside Parliament—that is the essential point. As the Prime Minister rightly said, the public will not trust the people who crashed the car last and put them back in the driving seat. It is not going to happen.

I listened to yesterday’s debate on Europe, but did not hear the confusion regarding the Labour party’s position remotely clarified. As far as I can see, the Opposition’s position now is that they are not in favour of an in/out referendum today, but they might be at some point in the future; yet, at the same time, they manage to be opposed to the idea of making a future commitment to the public that a new settlement with Europe should be the subject of a referendum. If they, like us, do not want a referendum now, why can they not just agree with us that there should be a referendum in the future on the basis that the public have the right to decide on the character of the settlement that we seek to negotiate with Europe?

On the question of powers in Europe, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that, through the review of competences, we are looking at that negotiation with specific objectives for the return of powers. The hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition talk about returning powers, but the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that the Opposition are talking not about repatriation but about reform and a flow of powers to and back from Europe. I thought that the Opposition had just agreed to the referendum lock on powers to Europe, yet they seem to be reopening that question. There is utter confusion on their part.

Finally, the hon. Lady referred to collective ministerial responsibility. It was my happy duty to lead from the Dispatch Box on the debate on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. She was very kind about that. In fact, she was so kind that she did not observe that, although I was defending a sticky wicket—though I did make the odd stroke here and there—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is not in his place, took the bails off my stumps later on. He was rather good—I give him credit for that.

The point is—the hon. Lady has to give the Government credit for this—that the mid-term review shows that we are very clear about where we are going and we are doing it together as a coalition. We have entered into not only a coalition but a mid-term review. We understand that we have a collective responsibility. I wish that the shadow Leader of the House and her colleagues would stand at the Dispatch Box and take either collective or individual responsibility for the mess they left this country in—for the debt and the six-and-a-half per cent. collapse in the economy. The reduction in GDP was not 0.1% but 6.3%. It was a bust like we had never seen before, after her then leader had promised that there would be no more boom and bust.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On collective responsibility, paragraph 2.1 of the ministerial code says that the way the Liberal Democrats behaved on the boundary review would have required them to cross the Floor and leave Government unless the Prime Minister had signed an explicit waiver from collective responsibility. How was the House informed of the waiver? Was it by a press release to the BBC or an e-mail to Lobby correspondents, or has a yellow flag been run up over Downing street?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall, because he was in his place, that the House was informed that one of the reasons why I addressed the House from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday was that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) spoke on behalf of the Government on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I spoke as Leader of the House in order to facilitate debate and to speak on behalf of my party in circumstances in which the Prime Minister had explicitly set aside collective ministerial responsibility. The House was informed by me then.

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

As the Leader of the House knows, more and more Members are coming to the Backbench Business Committee with ideas for debates that have a wider public interest. They are asking us to schedule debates quite far in advance so that they can then engage better with people outside in order to give them a better idea of what we are doing in Parliament. As he knows, we are given a maximum of two weeks’ notice of any days that are to be allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. Given that almost every Thursday is a Back-Bench day, will he consider the possibility of our working on the assumption that Thursdays will be Back-Bench days to allow Members more time to organise greater interest in the debates that are happening in Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady knows that I am happy to work with her and her colleagues to provide as much advance notice of the allocation of days as possible and, where possible, to enable her and her Committee to announce days in advance. We have been able to do that to some extent in the past. The issue was covered to some degree in the report from the Procedure Committee on the work of the Backbench Business Committee, to which I responded. We have a good record of providing Back-Bench time in the Chamber every week, with the exception of one week so far in this Session. She is, however, asking for a level of certainty in relation to future business that is not even available to me and my ministerial colleagues. She is aware of the issues that we face when timetabling business, but we do our absolute best to provide a degree of certainty to her and her colleagues, and we will continue to talk about how we can do that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although I accept that our armed forces should be more flexible and mobile, the Government would be suffering from institutional amnesia if they thought that conflicts and wars could be fought and won by equipment alone. May we have an urgent debate on the future of the defence budget beyond 2015, so that we can hear that the Government are going to protect not only equipment but personnel?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I share a common understanding that the decisions that we have had to make on the defence budget were not ones that we sought but ones that were effectively forced upon us by the financial circumstances that we were left in. None the less, they have been responsible decisions. For example, we have looked at the simple fact of dealing with the £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. Today, in a written ministerial statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out a future equipment plan for the Ministry of Defence, including a degree of contingency, that is extremely encouraging, compared with the past. He and the rest of the Government are committed to delivering the Future Force 2020 plan that we set out, notwithstanding the fact that it has involved some difficult decisions. I know that there will be opportunities for the House to debate that matter, but we in the coalition Government have committed ourselves to achieving those aims.

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

I recently took a delegation to the previous Housing Minister to discuss the bedroom tax. At that meeting, it was clear that the Minister did not understand his own policy. Yesterday, the Prime Minister again showed that no one understands the implications of the tax that the Government are introducing. May we have an urgent debate on the issue, so that Ministers can turn up and listen to the implications of the tax for ordinary people in our constituencies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I do not recall whether the hon. Gentleman was able to be at the recent oral questions on these matters, but, having listened to those oral questions, my recollection was that Ministers completely understood the issue. It is very simple: the rate of increase of housing benefit had become unsustainable and, at the same time, there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for social housing, as all Members of Parliament know. There is a real need to ensure that social housing is used as effectively as possible to meet housing need, and the combination of those circumstances means that there is every reason to have an incentive and, if necessary, a requirement for people not to under-occupy the housing that they live in.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

As part of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the failure of the Department for Education to answer written questions, I have been hacking into the computer database that holds the records for the House as a whole. I have discovered that some Departments are very good at answering questions and that some are not. Looking at questions that were tabled in 2011 and had not been answered by yesterday, I find that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health had just one each, but the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice had 21 and 42 respectively. May we have a debate on why certain Departments are good at answering questions and others are not?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. We have discussed this matter across the Dispatch Box before. Modesty forbids me to reiterate the record of the Department of Health in answering questions. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Suffice it to say that it can be done. We did it in the Department that had the largest number of questions, so it is not simply a matter of high volume leading to difficulty in performance.

I welcome what the Procedure Committee is doing. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that when the Procedure Committee reports, there will be the usual opportunities for the Government to respond and, if it is sought, for the matter to be debated in the House.

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

Has the Leader of the House seen the article on the front page of The Times today about a major scandal involving a charity and many millions of pounds? Does that not signify that the third sector—the charitable sector—is in deep trouble in our country? Forget the big society—the third sector and the charitable world are struggling to survive and to help people. Will we have a debate soon on the future of the third sector and charities?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have read that article. On the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate, I am aware from listening to questions and debates that Members across the House are supportive of charities and the voluntary sector, and want them to succeed. There are many ways in which the Government are trying to help them to succeed. However, having read the article in The Times this morning, I would urge him not to try to excuse those kinds of allegations by raising the financial problems. Those are separate issues. We should not try to draw together the situation in the voluntary sector and the issue of tax avoidance.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituent Colin Froude wrote to me this week about the £107,000 bill that his elderly parents are having to pay for their care home this year. Many constituents have come to me on this issue. There is great frustration across the House at the Government’s failure to bring forward proposals to deal with the escalating costs of social care. Will the Leader of the House bring the relevant Minister to the House to make a statement on this critical issue, which affects many people up and down the country?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a matter that is recognised in constituencies across the country as a compelling one that we must do something about. The Government have also been clear about that. He might reasonably have said that the previous Government failed to deal with the issue in 13 years. We have reached the point at which 45,000 older people a year are having to sell their homes to pay for care. The former Prime Minister Tony Blair said that that was a disgrace and that it would stop, but his Government did not act. They had a royal commission, but they did not act on it.

After the election, the coalition Government appointed Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues to undertake a commission. They reported in the summer of last year. We have reiterated that we are determined to implement their principles. As the mid-term review made clear, the House can look forward to further announcements in the coming weeks about how we will do exactly that.

[Mr Speaker]

Today is a first for me. It is the first time in my 16 years in the House that I have observed the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) occupying the middle ground of the Chamber. I call Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I have always felt that travel broadens the mind.

The Leader of the House will have heard the request from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the situation in north Africa. May I ask the Government, once again, to table a votable motion on the increasing deployment and involvement of British armed forces in what could become an unpleasant, long, drawn-out, guerrilla-like conflict into which this country, inevitably, will be sucked deeper and deeper? The precedent for holding a vote was set before the Iraq invasion in 2003 and it is now the norm that the significant deployment of British troops in a war requires the consent of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that and that the Government will table an appropriate motion for debate, so that many of us can express our concerns about the depth of our involvement.

[Mr Lansley]

In the first instance, I simply reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I believe Ministers have had several substantive opportunities to explain the nature and circumstances of our engagement, and to be questioned on that. I am not sure that I take the analogy with Iraq, or indeed Afghanistan; as my hon. Friends and Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, an analogy with the situation in Somalia is probably closer.

As the Government have made clear, we will observe the existing convention that before UK troops are committed to conflict, the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate and vote on the matter, except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. One should also recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said in the House this week, that the role of British troops is clearly not a combat role and it is not our intention to deploy combat troops. We are clear about the risks of mission creep—that was the nature of the question being asked—and have defined carefully the support that we are willing and able to provide to the French and Malian authorities. I would not carry the analogy to the point where the convention is engaged in the sense of a requirement for a debate and vote in this House.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

When anyone moves to Britain with their car they are required to register the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency, and to have UK plates on that vehicle within six months. That is to ensure that the vehicle is taxed, insured and roadworthy, and so that the driver can be prosecuted for any speeding or parking offences. By its own admission, the Department for Transport has said that those rules are not working, and with 2 million EU residents permanently residing in this country, there are potentially tens of thousands of vehicles on our roads illegally. Will the Leader of the House use his charm, influence and position to pioneer a joint statement by the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and say what Her Majesty’s Government will do to solve the problem?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So far, the erudition of questions has been equalled only by their length. I am sure we will have a characteristically snappy answer from the Leader of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend made an important point very well. I will indeed get in touch with my colleagues and use what influence I have to encourage them, if not to make a collective statement, certainly to respond to him on behalf of the Government and to inform the House.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I know the Leader of the House is a keen sportsperson and takes a keen interest in sport. Is he as concerned as I am about reports this week of a reduction in participation in school sports? That is worrying given the Olympic legacy. May we have a debate, discussion or ministerial statement about the decline in school sport?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always hopeful that we might have more opportunities to discuss sport in the House, and in part that is a matter for Members and the Backbench Business Committee. In that context, however, from my point of view I think we are doing a great deal. For example, I and my colleagues were responsible for promoting school sports clubs though the Change4Life campaign, and extending those clubs in primary schools and connecting them with financial support for school partnership organisers in order to connect with secondary schools. That was not only about support for elite sport, but about ensuring the participation of all young people in sports of one kind or another, particularly at primary school age.

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

May we have a debate on the programme motion on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, given that there will not be a debate on that subject on Tuesday? That would allow the Government, and indeed the Opposition, to explain why they appear to be running scared of the Committee of the whole House deliberating on the issue, and why they are breaking with established convention from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts of 1990 and 2008 in not enabling Members of Parliament fully to express their consciences at Committee stage.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain. We have thought very carefully about the issues raised by him and colleagues on both sides of the House. I will not go into the 1990 analogy at length, but at that time there was no precedent or practice for taking evidence in a Public Bill Committee.

[Mr Burrowes]

What about hybrid Bills?

[Mr Lansley]

The Bill is not a hybrid Bill.

We propose that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill be debated in Committee, which affords the opportunity for the taking of oral evidence. From my point of view, that was a compelling reason for considering the Bill in Committee. Because of its technical character, the unitary nature of the argument and the need for oral evidence, particularly on the permissive religious marriage provisions, that is absolutely the right thing. It is also right to make it clear that we are prepared for two days of debate on the Floor of the House for consideration on Report.

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

Since 1999, the cost of football tickets has increased by 716%. Liverpool fans might have been more entertained had they gone to see Fulham beat West Ham last night, but those who went to the Emirates to see their team will have paid £62. Fulham fans like me paid £53 to see a game at Stamford Bridge just before Christmas. May we have a debate on the impact of price increases for football supporters, and particularly on the impact on away fans, who bring so much spirit and atmosphere to many football games, and who are in danger of priced out of attending football?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point well. I will not comment on it, because wider issues have been raised, not least in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport report on football governance, of which ticket prices form an important part.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

This Sunday in St Editha’s church, the Peel Society commemorates the 225th anniversary of the birth of Sir Robert Peel, the former Member for Tamworth. As a keen student of parliamentary history, Mr Speaker, you will know that Peel was a great reformer. He emancipated the Catholics, fathered the modern police force and repealed the corn laws. At the time, those measures were unpopular, but he believed them to be right, and was proved to be right. Therefore, in the spirit of Peel, may we have a statement from the Government on their key reforms to remind us that those things that may not find favour with all now will eventually be proved to be right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the achievements of Sir Robert Peel, who was one of the founders of this Conservative party. In addition to the great reforms my hon. Friend mentions, Peel also oversaw legislation such as the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, which forbade the employment of women and children underground, and the Factories Act 1844, which limited working hours for children and women in factories. Although Benjamin Disraeli fashioned the phrase “two nations” and the principle of a one nation party, in a sense Sir Robert Peel implemented those things in policy terms well before that—recognising the responsibility we each have to one another. One of the great traditions of conservatism was born with him.

I entirely share my hon. Friend’s desire for such a debate. Those who have a reforming instinct and introduce reforms they believe to be right are often the subject of considerable criticism. They look and hope to be justified in the long term.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I do not know how many teaspoons of sugar the Leader of the House had in his cup of coffee this morning, but he will know of the dangers of sugar and the fight against diabetes. As the architect of the responsibility deal, is he concerned that a third of school leavers of primary school age are either obese or overweight. Is it not time we had a statement or debate on the success of the responsibility deal?

[Mr Lansley]

I introduced the responsibility deal with my colleagues at the Department of Health precisely because I am concerned about the number of people in this country who are overweight and obese—[Interruption.] Contrary to the sedentary remark from the Opposition Front Bench, the deal is working. I will not go into this at great length now, although perhaps we will find an opportunity to do so. The deal includes the calorie reduction challenge, which is one of the world-leading opportunities for us—not just the food industry, but all working together across the board—to consider the extent to which the virtual abolition of artificial trans fats, the reduction of saturated fats, the reduction of sugars in foods, and a reduction of calorie intake can get us to sustainable, healthy weight.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Ceredigion county council is one of the latest local authorities to sign the community covenant and appoint an armed forces champion. May we have a debate on the housing, health care and benefit entitlements of veterans and, critically, on how we communicate those entitlements to the veterans to whom we owe so much?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is absolutely right. I value the way my own local authority and his have taken up the commitment to the armed forces covenant. He is right that we should make sure that it is understood, not least by veterans and their families. The first annual report on the military covenant showed good progress, but I know my colleagues, not least at the Ministry of Defence, will be very keen to take up his suggestion to consider how we can do more to publicise it.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In the past 10 years, £1 billion has been stolen from the UK Exchequer through the illicit trade in and smuggling of fuels, yet in the past 10 years no one has been jailed in Northern Ireland for these crimes—an atrocious record. Given that today another oil-laundering plant has been smashed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is it not time for a statement from the Treasury on the sentencing and arrest policy of HMRC officers, so that we can get these criminals behind bars where they belong?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He will forgive me if I do not know HMRC’s immediate response, but I will of course talk to my colleagues at the Treasury and encourage them not only to respond to him but to update the House at an early point.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

May we have a debate in the House so that we can issue a clarion call to parish and town councillors to make use of neighbourhood planning to empower their local communities, shape their environment, promote local economic growth and defend green fields?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen in the past how parish plans have successfully informed local development frameworks, but we have gone further and entrenched in statute the ability of those neighbourhood areas to shape their own area. That is very encouraging, and already more than 150 neighbourhood areas have been designated. He, like others, will be pleased that the Department is running a support programme from April to help local authorities with neighbourhood planning.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

As the only parliamentary vote we have had this week was one where seven parties came together in the national interest to defeat the Conservative party, is it not an appropriate time to extend the cricketing metaphor employed by the Leader of the House, for the Government to draw stumps, to return to the pavilion—where most of the Conservative Back Benchers appear to have gone today—and to allow Members to have a say on the non-existence of a forward programme for this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

The premises of that question are almost entirely wrong. I will not re-run the vote on Tuesday, but I am absolutely clear that what we set out to do was in the national interest—more particularly, it is in the democratic interest for votes to be of equal value. Those on the Opposition Benches have to explain why they have continuously, over many years, sought to frustrate people in having their vote count equally in more equal-sized constituencies. On the idea that there is no forward programme, what did the hon. Gentleman think we were doing when we published the mid-term review? That is a comprehensive statement not only about the delivery of the coalition agreement but about additional clear, strong priorities. This week, he saw the reform of child care and support for child care provision come through. Those and other priorities are coming through, as the mid-term review set out.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

This time last week, I asked for a departmental statement on departmental responses to letters, or the lack of them. The Leader of the Houser replied:

“I will certainly be in touch with the Treasury and will perhaps encourage my colleagues there to respond to my hon. Friend before they answer questions here next Tuesday.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 467.]

That was last Tuesday. Nothing has happened. Will my right hon. Friend please come to my rescue once more?

[Mr Lansley]

I am somewhat confused, Mr Speaker, because I have a letter to my hon. Friend from the Economic Secretary dated 28 January. I will ensure that a copy is placed in my hon. Friend’s hand.

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

May we have a debate on the scrapping of council tax benefit? Currently, 5.9 million families receive this benefit, which is to be abolished on 1 April, and the Resolution Foundation says that a single parent using child care and working full time on the minimum wage could see their council tax jump from £220 to £797. This is happening at a time when the bedroom tax is coming in, when tax credits are being cut and when the minimum wage is being frozen for under-21s. May we have a debate, therefore, about why council tax benefit is being cut, while millionaires are getting a tax break?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that council tax benefit is not being scrapped, but being localised, with local authorities taking responsibility. He also knows perfectly well that there are clear administrative benefits associated with local authorities taking responsibility for council tax benefit alongside their housing benefit responsibilities. Like any Opposition Member who asks about this, however, he must start by recognising that we are doing this because we are in the most appalling financial mess inherited from the last Labour Government, under whom spending on council tax benefit doubled. Welfare reform is necessary. They cannot create the problem and then resist every solution.

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

Today, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill, will officially be implemented across the public sector. It marks the end of a two-year campaign to change how we design public service contracts and the beginning of a new campaign to ensure that the principles of the Act are properly implemented by public bodies. May we have a debate on public service commissioning, specifically on how we can ensure that the principles of social value are instilled across all public bodies?

[Mr Lansley]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. This important reform, for which he has been responsible, is about how we design public services and contracts. We are working across Government to build in social value. It needs to come not just from central Government, however, but with the support of local authorities and our partners, including in the health service. Social Enterprise UK has published a guidance document that will help commissioners and procurers of services to do it, but I undertake that I and my colleagues will try to ensure that we take every opportunity to see how we can take forward the principles of social value across public services.

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

There are 3,200 Motability scheme customers in Hull, many of whom are concerned about the changes to the personal independence payment being introduced in April. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about how many of those people are likely to lose their vehicles in this new review that they will have to take part in?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will have noticed—because she follows these matters closely—the exchanges in the other place, not least the response from my noble Friend Lord Freud. As the Prime Minister made clear at the Dispatch Box in Prime Minister’s questions, we continue to take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that those with disabilities see resources focused on those in greatest need.

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

May we please have a statement on what progress has been made on the provision of improved broadband speeds in Greater Manchester? Many of my constituents, particularly those living in rural areas, are still forced to put up with very slow connection speeds, which, among other things, holds back rural businesses, and still have no idea when or whether they will benefit from the £1 million allocated by the Government to Greater Manchester to improve broadband access there.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. It is important that urban areas, which often find it easier to deliver superfast broadband on a commercial or near-commercial basis, recognise that in putting together their schemes they have a responsibility not to marginalise rural areas, where the commercial case for delivering superfast broadband is obviously much harder to make. That is why we are setting such ambitious targets for 2015. Broadband Delivery UK is supporting that, but, as I know from my authority, this requires not only resources from BDUK, but substantial additional funding. My local authority and others are getting together to make that happen.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall my asking for a general debate recently on the proliferation of betting shops. May I reiterate that call and request that the debate be framed in the context of the implementation of the Portas review and the Government’s localism agenda?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that, following the Portas pilots funding, we are taking these forward along with additional packages, such as the high street innovation fund and the national markets fortnight campaign. Many of the 300 towns that did not get direct access to the Portas pilots are taking forward elements of their original plans across their high streets. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to encourage her colleagues across the House to make a submission to the Backbench Business Committee—as I think we discussed previously—but this seems to be exactly the sort of opportunity it might look for.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Worryingly, after two and a half years it seems that IPSA is still a four-letter swear-word to many of my colleagues in all parts of the House. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that every year the taxpayer is charged £11,500 to do our expenses individually? That is £7.5 million per annum charged by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Does he think that is value for money in this time of austerity and does he think there is anything he can do about it?

[Mr Lansley]

The answer to my hon. Friend is yes, I am aware of that. I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and one of our responsibilities is to scrutinise the estimates for IPSA. We have established in statute an independent organisation. It needs to be funded to do its job properly and although it is independent, just as this House is responsible for voting resources right across Government and the public sector, one of our jobs is to ensure that it delivers the kind of value for money that we would expect in any part of the public services.

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

May we have a debate about the support offered to people, particularly those in skilled and technical jobs, when they face the prospect of unemployment? This week Total Petrochemicals in Stalybridge announced that it had entered into consultation with its work force on the future of the factory, due to tough trading conditions in the polystyrene market. Does the Leader of the House agree that at times like this it is incredibly important to ensure that we offer employees as much targeted support as possible to safeguard as many jobs as possible or help with the transition to new employment opportunities?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Announcements of possible job losses in any constituency are a matter of considerable concern to that constituency’s Member of Parliament. The most important things are, that support is available through Jobcentre Plus and, if appropriate, the Work programme. Sometimes support can be readily available from employers, as part of a package. At the same time, it is not just about offering support through retraining and job placement; it is about making sure that the jobs are there. The most encouraging thing is that since the last election we have 1.1 million more private sector jobs in this country. That is what should give people the greatest hope for the future.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

As the Leader of the House will be aware, Canada and Australia—members of the Commonwealth—along with other countries, such as the USA, Poland and Hungary, recognise the genocide called the Ukrainian holodomor, in which 7 million Ukrainians were systematically starved to death in 1932-33 by Stalin. Britain does not recognise that it was genocide. Is it not time for this to be rectified and may we have a debate?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an issue of great historical and, for many, personal significance that has limited international recognition. She of course understands fully that it was an appalling tragedy. The UK fully recognises its significance. I have to tell her that the United Kingdom does not judge that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to categorise the holodomor as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN convention on genocide. However, we recognise that there is a division of opinion among academics on this matter. We will continue to follow the debate closely, particularly in the light of any further and emerging evidence.

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

Fire safety in places of public assembly and in historic buildings is very important. Has the fire Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—indicated whether he might issue a supportive statement encouraging parliamentary colleagues to undertake the fire safety awareness training available on the parliamentary intranet as that would be in the interests of our own safety, that of our staff and visitors to this place? Will the Leader of the House encourage the fire Minister to attend the fire evacuation drill planned for the Chamber at 12.30 pm on 11 February?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose record on supporting fire safety measures is recognised across the House. I will be here myself on 11 February. I am not sure of the position of my colleagues, but I encourage them to recognise that such attendance and fire awareness training are important things to do. I am aware from discussions in the House of Commons Commission of the precise extent of the take-up of that training among Members and staff. It is not as complete as it should be, so I encourage people to take that opportunity.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1000?

[That this House is disappointed that despite a unanimous vote in Parliament calling for an investigation, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has refused to hold a full inquiry into allegations of anti-competitive behaviour in the petrol and diesel market; notes that their decision is despite evidence of market abuse handed to them by hundreds of independent petrol stations, transport firms, small businesses and members of the public through RMI Petrol, the AA, petrolpromise.com and FairFuelUK; further notes that even the OFT report admits that over the last 10 years the combined gross margin for refining, wholesaling and retailing has increased by 3.4 pence per litre for petrol and 7.2 pence per litre for diesel and that taking account of inflation, this represents an increase in real terms of 14 per cent for petrol and 41 per cent for diesel; and therefore calls on the OFT to reconsider its decision not to hold a full inquiry and to step up the pressure on the oil companies and financial speculators who are pushing up prices at the pump.]

May we have an urgent statement about yesterday’s shocking decision by the Office of Fair Trading not to hold a full inquiry into the rip-off oil companies that are ripping off motorists at the petrol pumps—especially given that the House unanimously supported, without a Division, the idea of having a full inquiry? The OFT decision flies in the face of thousands of pieces of evidence from FairFuelUK, petrolpromise.com, the AA and many other organisations. It is undermined even by its own report, which admits that over the last decade fuel margins have grown in real terms by 14% for petrol and an astonishing 41% for diesel.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who continues to argue forcefully for the fairest fuel prices possible for consumers. I completely understand that. As a Government, we have continually listened to my hon. Friend’s and other arguments, which is why the price of fuel at the pumps is 10p a litre lower than it would have been if we had allowed the last Government’s escalator to proceed. My hon. Friend understands, as do I, that the Office of Fair Trading is independent in its investigations and in the judgments it makes. There will be opportunities for colleagues to question Treasury Ministers, for example, about their approach to fuel pricing at the next Treasury questions.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Like Mr Speaker’s lectures, the Christmas lectures at the Royal Institution are part of our cultural life. They were started by Michael Faraday in 1825 at 21 Albemarle street, which is now under threat. I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate and will he facilitate a meeting between leading scientists and the Minister for Universities and Science to save 21 Albemarle street for the nation?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate, but I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. The hon. Lady knows of his remarkable interest in, and his devotion to, supporting science, which is reflected across the Government. If I may presume for him, I think he might well be willing to take an opportunity to talk to scientists, without promising that it is the Government’s responsibility in any way.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

At last week’s business questions my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised the important issue of interest rate swap mis-selling. Today, the Financial Services Authority issued a report, and I believe that it would be good to have some parliamentary scrutiny of it. That might provide more publicity for the issue so that other businesses that have been involved but do not realise that they might be eligible for compensation start to take action.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is absolutely right to follow up the matter from last week. Upstairs this morning, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is taking further evidence on the mis-selling of interest rate swaps, forming part of its further inquiries into banking standards. In addition, I will talk to my colleagues about updating the House on what can be done to ensure that small businesses do not continue to be borne down by the cost of mis-sold policies of that kind.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that very point, I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that we do indeed get this type of report before the House. Many of the businesses concerned are in dire straits and need action and compensation now. They do not really want to wait for the outcome of reports and investigations by other Committees. Given that there are six weeks before the next Treasury questions, may we have a statement from a Treasury Minister about what can be done?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, which I completely understand. The length of time that it took for the FSA to undertake its investigation, and its explanation of the difficulties of investigating individual cases, demonstrate the scale of the problem in relation to any individual policy, but today’s report indicates the need for the sector across the board to try not to deepen the harm done to companies, in terms of the policies that they have taken up and also in terms of where they stand at present. I will consult my colleagues on possible opportunities for a debate, but it might also be possible to arrange one by means of an application to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

My local planning authority, Powys county council, is a small, hard-pressed rural authority which is currently having to divert £2.8 million of its funds to defend its rejection of wind farm applications in a public inquiry, while developers have access to unlimited moneys which are demanded from consumers. This is a David versus Goliath position. May we have an urgent debate on the way in which appeals are funded? That would give us an opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are not entirely on the side of Goliath.

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I did not listen to all the questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and his fellow Ministers, which I think may have touched on the issues that he has raised. I will of course discuss those issues with them, but it must be said that there often seems to be a disparity between the resources available to those making planning applications and those available to the—sometimes small—local authorities that respond to them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On 10 January, the Foreign Secretary gave me what he described as a “broad assurance” that there would be a vote in the House on the deployment of soldiers abroad, following the precedent of 2003. The Leader of the House rested his refusal to allow that on the narrow point that we are not in conflict in Mali. We have up to 400 troops there; many of them are armed, and if they are attacked, they will use those arms. That sounds very much like conflict to me.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). Given that the country is now weary and wary of avoidable wars, is it not important for us to debate the issue, so that the House can establish what precisely is the terrorist threat to Britain from Tuareg nationalists?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House would not wish me to repeat what I said earlier—which I think was perfectly understandable in the circumstances—but I might add that our actions have been in response to what were, in effect, urgent and emergency requests from, in the first instance, the French authorities, with the support of the Malian authorities. That engages, to an extent, the question of this being an emergency. However, we will constantly keep in mind the question of whether it is appropriate, under the convention, which we respect and to which we will adhere, to present the issue to the House for debate.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Why has there been no statement, either oral or written, about the decision—announced in the media this morning—to scrap the competition for the First Great Western rail franchise? If no Minister will come and explain that decision to the House, will the Leader of the House contact the Department for Transport after business questions and ensure that every Member who is affected by it—including my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who are in the Chamber now—receives a letter today containing details of the reasons for a decision that affects our constituents very deeply?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because the matter is market-sensitive, it was the subject of an announcement to the markets and a written ministerial statement this morning, so the House was informed.

[Kevin Brennan]

It was not advertised.

[Mr Lansley]

No, it was not, because it is market-sensitive, but a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning. However, I will check with my colleagues at the Department for Transport to establish whether they have notified Members across the House about the three franchises on which announcements were made in that statement.

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

When will the Leader of the House schedule a debate on the massive rise in unemployment among the disabled that there has been under this Government? It has increased by 42,000 since mid-2010, to a record 434,000. Is he aware that it will be added to by a further 44 sacked workers from the Remploy factory in Springburn in my constituency, which this Government are disgracefully allowing to close today?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, I am aware of the situation in relation to Remploy because I was sitting on the Front Bench when the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), responded sympathetically and well to questions from Members. If we had sufficient Government time to be able to debate employment, I would love to do so because we would be able to say many very positive things. Unfortunately, the nature of time and the allocation of time in the House is such that most Government time is committed to the progress of legislation and addressing a number of specific requirements. Of course, Opposition time and Back-Bench business time is available, and I know that employment issues of all kinds are right at the forefront of the interests of Members.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on pathology services in north-west London? Since The Doctors Laboratory—TDL—took over those services last month, doctors have complained that bloods are not stored or transported safely. One general practitioner has reported that 300 results have gone missing, that an excessive number of potassium results are high and that INR results are unexpectedly low. As the Leader of the House well knows, that could lead to a misdiagnosis and, consequently, an increase in warfarin, which could be fatal. Those matters have now been reported to the Care Quality Commission, as have concerns of all the GPs in the area and the North West London Hospitals NHS Trust. The matter is urgent and I hope he will create time to debate it.

[Mr Lansley]

As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is on the Bench and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say, he might have noted it. If my recollection is right, the hon. Gentleman has described a process that was a consequence of the Carter review undertaken under the previous Administration. The then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, so he might like to have a word with the hon. Gentleman to explain why the Carter review set out specifically to rationalise and, in some cases, to secure the outsourced management of pathology services.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Last but not least, Mr Speaker. The past week has not been good for animals: we have heard numerous references to stalking horses; we have heard a Minister using American slang in referring to “discombobulated monkeys”; we have had a Westminster Hall debate on hunting of foxes; and one Conservative Member is reported to have referred to the Liberal Democrats as rodents leaving a sinking ship. May we have a debate on how animals can be kept out of politics?

[Mr Lansley]

In my experience, when we are discussing wild animals in circuses, and when we are discussing horsemeat up in Westminster Hall and elsewhere, animals seem to be in politics all the time.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013

Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013

Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013

Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Act 2013.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013

Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

Select Committee Effectiveness, Resources and Powers

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing this debate, and I thank our colleagues, the Chairs of a number of Select Committees, for attending and contributing to the debate. It is good to see them here.

I shall, of course, want to respond to the Liaison Committee. The House will recall and members of the Liaison Committee will be aware that I did so on behalf of the Government in my letter of 14 January, which was published on 24 January. I will not attempt to rehearse or reiterate all the points that were made there. One recommendation was specifically aimed at the Government, and I shall refer to it later, but there are other important issues in the report that I want to touch on.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised a number of other issues that were not necessarily the subject of the Liaison Committee’s report. I shall seek to respond to some of them, perhaps in next week’s business questions. It may be useful for me to recall precisely what proportion of Bills in this Session have been published in draft and subjected to scrutiny. I believe that the number would considerably exceed that in Parliaments under the previous Government.

The hon. Lady is quite right to say that we are looking for more pre-legislative scrutiny. I recently gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and specifically touched on the mechanisms available for formal scrutiny, public reading stages, and evidence taking in Select Committees and Public Bill Committees. I think we should be flexible rather than being rigid and adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. The hon. Lady is only too aware—as, I know, are other Members—of the exigencies of government, and the requirement for legislation sometimes to be introduced without all those mechanisms necessarily being appropriate or available.

The background to this debate is the fact that the House now has far more power to hold the Executive to account than it has had in the past. In the last Parliament, it would not have been possible for the Liaison Committee to table a substantive motion for debate unless the Government had agreed to it and allocated time for it to be debated. The establishment of the Backbench Business Committee—it is good to see its Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), in her place—gave Back Benchers the power to table substantive motions. That is a significant departure from the Executive control of the agenda that we saw in the last Parliament, and one that is greatly to be welcomed.

The motion welcomes the positive impact of recent reforms, particularly the election of Committee Chairs and members, on the effectiveness and authority of Select Committees. I agree with that. I think that the changes we have seen during this Parliament are some of the most significant since the introduction of the departmental Select Committee system in 1979. I pay tribute not least to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who is now the Patronage Secretary—for his work in implementing reforms in the House, and for much else besides.

The motion also deals with two specific issues to which I wish to refer, but before I do so, let me comment on the Liaison Committee’s observation that it considers the Government’s response to be positive in tone. I am glad of that: it was intended to be positive in tone, and I hope that our further discussions will be as well.

One of those two specific issues is the procedure for Committee report launches on the Floor of the House. I look forward, along with the Committee, to agreement being reached on a procedure that will help to provide a proper structure for Select Committee report launches. I should make it clear that our preference is that the choice of reports to be launched rests with the Backbench Business Committee, rather than with Mr Speaker, as was suggested by the Liaison Committee. That would be in line with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee’s report on the work of the Backbench Business Committee. I know from my own observation of the Backbench Business Committee’s work in just the last few months that it is extremely well placed to interpret and judge, on behalf of the House, the relative priorities that Members—but not necessarily the Government—would attach to opportunities for short debates on substantive motions relating to Select Committee reports.

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

One of the main issues involved in the launches of Select Committee reports is timing. As it is the Government who allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee, it is not always possible for Select Committee Chairs to launch their reports on the days that suit them best. It would be very helpful to us if the Leader of the House could commit himself to working more closely with the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that reports were launched on days that were convenient to the Chairs.

[Mr Lansley]

I hope the hon. Lady knows that we are constantly willing and able, whenever possible, to accommodate the requests of the Backbench Business Committee. This is the second time today she has asked me to extend to the Committee opportunities that are not often open even to heads of Departments who try to secure time for statements or debates on specific days. However, we will of course do all that we can.

That brings me to the second issue that I wanted to raise, that of substantive motions for debate in Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee says that it is

“ready to explore whether the spirit of these proposals could be better approached in other ways”,

and I welcome that. I agree with the Committee that the 20 Thursday sittings allocated to it in Westminster Hall have not always been well attended. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will know, the debate on the Justice Committee’s report on its post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act finished before its allotted time. I find that surprising, given the extent of the interest in the administration of the Freedom of Information Act.

When I thought about the matter in preparation for this debate, I wondered whether we should at least try to look for a practical way of solving the problem. Noticeably, the Thursday Westminster Hall debates chosen by the Backbench Business Committee are often well attended, and I suspect that that Committee would be willing and able to schedule more debates in Westminster Hall if that time was available. If the Liaison Committee were to think about working with the Backbench Business Committee, perhaps even giving up some of its allocation of time in Westminster Hall, and if Chairs of Select Committees were, in parallel, more frequent bidders to the Backbench Business Committee for debates on Select Committee business on a substantive motion in this Chamber, we might find a solution that benefits both the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee, and, especially, the House as a whole. Such an approach might allow precious debating time in Westminster Hall to be used and allow the particular characteristics of a substantive motion in this House to be used; things might be optimised both ways.

[Natascha Engel]

I wish briefly to put it on the record that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is a member of the Liaison Committee. That membership facilitates exactly that kind of negotiation between the Chairs of the Select Committees and the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that where it is best to debate and vote on a report on the Floor of the House, we can do that. We are talking about time available to Back Benchers, and we can decide between ourselves how best to allocate it. We work very closely together on this.

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand that that is so, and I knew it to be the case. I would not wish the House to interpret what I am saying to mean that I want to interfere in any way in this matter. Having observed the situation, I simply think that there is an opportunity for that working together to take place. That flexibility is available and the two Committees might do that.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I entirely endorse what the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has said; we get on very well, we are able to negotiate and it is quite easy. It would not be ideal to give the Backbench Business Committee the job of judging between reports of Select Committees and then placing them in competition with debates that Back Benchers want because there is a big constituency interest. We must have a procedure that ensures that, either in Westminster Hall or in the House, some kind of priority can be attached to those matters where a Select Committee wishes to warn the House that something is going wrong in the system of government.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, but I am happy to see that informal work proceed. I do not think that at this moment we are talking about any requirement for a formal change in the procedure of the House. We are simply talking about the exercise of flexibility, which need not be at my behest in any sense; it might entirely be to best meet the needs of the Members of this House, be it as members of Select Committees, as constituency Members or in pursuit of their particular interests.

The recommendation of the Liaison Committee to have substantive motions in Westminster Hall has the potential to impact significantly on the procedures in this House, including possibly by disrupting the business on the Floor to take votes following debates in Westminster Hall. The proposition was made on the basis that debates on e-petitions in Westminster Hall take place on substantive motions. Such debates, which are being conducted on a pilot basis, actually take place on a motion with the formula “That this House has considered”; such a motion is not meant to be amended or divided upon. Should that happen in reality, the potential effects on procedure would be significant, and they have not been tested or evaluated. Changes of the significance suggested deserve far greater consideration of the possible consequences, and it may be that the Procedure Committee could consider those in a more general review of the types of business suitable to be taken in Westminster Hall.

Only one recommendation is specifically aimed at the Government, and it relates to a review of the relationship between Government and Select Committees, with the aim of producing joint guidelines. The Liaison Committee report said:

“We believe that the Government has not yet recognised the changed mood in the House and the strength of our resolve to achieve change.”

I would say in response that the Government have been responsible for the most significant transfer of powers for decades and I believe we can rightly be pleased with what we have achieved together. I understand the mood among Select Committee Chairs and in the House as a whole. and I hope that the Liaison Committee will accept my assurance that all the comments in our response were offered constructively with the aim of securing reform where it is necessary or improves the current situation for Members and in the eyes of the public.

There is a growing public and parliamentary interest in the accountability not only of Ministers but of civil servants. The civil service reform plan, published in June 2012, contained a number of recommendations on that accountability. The Government believe that the existing model of ministerial accountability is well established and should continue to underpin the effective workings of government. We know that we can sharpen that accountability for civil servants in a way that enables Select Committees to understand, invigilate and take views on the performance of Departments in relation to delivery, but I would not want that process to undermine the principle that Ministers are accountable for the policy and performance of their Departments.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will know, the Government are reviewing the document known as the Osmotherly rules, which provides guidance for civil servants. As part of this review the Government will liaise with the Liaison Committee and the Constitution Committee in the other place. I look forward to the productive and constructive discussions between my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and representatives of the Liaison Committee. I recognise, of course, that plans are in place for former accounting officers to be held to account.

Before I finish, I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said about the description of Select Committees. They carry the authority of Parliament and are distinct from any other cross-party group or group of Members. I noted that the Education Committee was described this morning in the early bulletins as a “cross-party group of MPs” and the Transport Committee was called “a Committee of MPs”. Select Committees engage the authority of Parliament and I urge the media to recognise that as well as the distinctiveness of that authority.

I thoroughly commend the Liaison Committee’s recommendation to other Select Committees that the National Audit Office is available to support them in their scrutiny of the use of resources. Indeed, the NAO told the Public Accounts Commission that it supported that recommendation.

The work that has been done is a thorough and timely consideration of the work of Select Committees. In its follow-up report, the Liaison Committee emphasised the importance of focusing on impact rather than simply publishing reports and letting recommendations lie. That is clearly the right approach. Select Committees have greater authority and a responsibility to be the champions of good scrutiny. They have greater access to time and to debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall and we can continue to use those opportunities more effectively. On behalf of the Government, I look forward to working with the Liaison Committee and others to pursue the recommendations.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment 23 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

[Mr Lansley]

Lords amendments 5 and 23 on the boundary review were inserted into the Bill in the Lords, despite being outside the scope of the Bill. This was clearly done with the intention of preventing the implementation of the boundary review, which was agreed by this Parliament in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

The effect of Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu would be to provide for the boundary review to proceed and for the Boundary Commission’s recommendations to come into force, taking effect at the next general election, without a requirement for any further vote in either House of Parliament.

I move this motion as Leader of the House in order to facilitate the debate. In the first instance, Members of this House will decide whether to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, the effect of which would be to put off the boundary review until 2018. If Members approve that motion, we would then go on to vote on whether instead the current boundary review should go ahead without further interference.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

May I say how disappointed I am that it is not the Deputy Prime Minister who is moving the motion? I will have to ask my right hon. Friend the question instead. Is he aware that in 2010 in this Chamber the Deputy Prime Minister made it very clear that the boundary review would be established on the simple principle of fairness, with all votes being of equal worth? Do the Lib Dems not do principle on the 29th of the month, or is it just on Tuesdays?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I will come on to the substance of the issue, but if he will forgive me and the House will bear with me, I wish first to make certain that hon. Members understand the structure of the debate and what the implications of each vote might be.

If the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment were agreed, we would go on to vote on the Government amendments in lieu, which would have the effect of proceeding with the boundary review without further votes in Parliament. If, however, hon. Members vote against the motion to disagree, the Lords amendments will be held to have been agreed with, and no further votes will take place on this group. There are therefore three potential outcomes: to agree with the Lords; to disagree and put the Bill back as it was when it left this House; or to settle the boundaries review issue now through the amendments in lieu.

I should make it clear to the House that while as Leader of the House I am enabling the debate, I will also set out my view and that of my party. In doing so, I will not be setting out formally the view of the Government, as there is not a settled coalition view. Accordingly, and as happened in the Lords, collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside for this debate.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not quite understand what the Leader of the House has said. On 6 September 2010, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill received its Second Reading, and the Deputy Prime Minister—Nick Clegg, as he is listed in Hansard—voted for it, and Mr Peter Bone voted against it. On Third Reading, on 20 November 2010, Mr Clegg again voted for it and Mr Bone voted against it. Surely it must be the settled view of the Government? It has gone through all its stages: how can it not be the settled view of the Government?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall very well that that Bill was the Government’s view and the Government’s policy, and the House agreed with that Government Bill. The issue is these Lords amendments, and as I told the House, the ministerial code explicitly allows for ministerial responsibility to be set aside in particular circumstances, and it has been set aside in relation to the debate and votes on this particular point.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does the ministerial code not also say that Ministers must abide by the coalition agreement in the same way as they must abide by international law?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct in that respect. The coalition agreement is clearly a relevant issue, but it is not encapsulated in the ministerial code. The code is very clear—he will no doubt be familiar with it—and makes clear the requirements for Ministers to accept the obligations of ministerial collective responsibility save when it is explicitly set aside. I am simply making it clear that collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside in relation to this debate and for these purposes.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has answered questions about ministerial responsibility in front of a Select Committee. Can he tell us who set aside collective responsibility and, if it was the Prime Minister, why he did so?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the ministerial code. Indeed, when ministerial collective responsibility is explicitly set aside, it is the Prime Minister who makes that decision. He is clearly doing it, as the House will understand, in the context of coalition government. As we know, that can give rise to occasions where there is not a collective view, and where by extension it is therefore not possible for a collective view to be the subject of collective ministerial responsibility. Let me turn to the substance of the issues.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No; I will give way in a moment. Let me turn to the substance of the issues.

Parliament agreed less than two years ago to a boundary review, and it did so for good reasons. There are major disparities in the size of constituencies. In England, East Ham has 92,000 voters; Wirral West has just 55,000. The differences are even greater in respect of other nations: Arfon in Wales has an electorate of just 41,000. This means that some votes count much more than others, and the principle of greater equality in the value of each vote is at the heart of this new boundary review. Votes should carry much more equal weight across the country in electing Members to this House and in deciding a future Government. If the current review were not to happen, in England the next general election would be based on the register of February 2000, with all the consequent disparities and inequalities which have been exacerbated since then. It would be 15 years out of date.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being just a tad disingenuous in claiming—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

Would the Leader of the House accept that he has put only a part of his argument when he justifies the measure on the grounds of seeking equality of electorates? That principle is agreed across the Chamber. The objection to the 2011 Act was that it was a wholly partisan measure, breaking a clear convention that this kind of measure be agreed across the parties, to arbitrarily reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That is the real reason.

[Mr Lansley]

Well, Mr Speaker, that was a long time to be sitting down. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am on occasions wrong, but I endeavour never to be disingenuous. On this occasion I am not wrong either. One could equally argue that it was a partisan effort on the part of the Opposition to frustrate the intention of the House to bring equality and fairness into the franchise when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was passed. None the less, my point is simply that Parliament voted on that legislation, which has been enacted. That was done on the principle of equality and fairness and the Boundary Commission has proceeded on that basis. Not now proceeding with the review would leave all the inequalities in constituencies, between constituencies and between voters that go all the way back to February 2000.

[Mark Reckless]

My right hon. Friend says that he is not wrong, but he stated that the ministerial code contains no reference to the coalition agreement. Paragraph 1.2 states:

“The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the Coalition agreement”.

If that is the case, why is the Deputy Prime Minister being allowed to break it?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has the advantage of me, but the ministerial code explicitly states the circumstances in which ministerial collective responsibility can be set aside. That is for the Prime Minister to decide, notwithstanding either the coalition agreement or the ministerial code.

Returning to the review, Members of this House must be aware that not only is the principle of equality and fairness relevant, but the review will have the effect of bringing down the number of Members here from 650 to 600, cutting the cost of politics by £13.5 million a year. As we are cutting back on administration and costs across the whole of the public services, it is only right that we apply the same principles to ourselves.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

On inequality, how equal is it to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and increase the number of Members of the House of Lords by an extra 125 since 2010? Where is the equity in that?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members know perfectly well that if they had supported a programme motion on House of Lords reform, we would have been able to reform the House of Lords and reduce the number of Members in the Lords. But no, they did not do that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I always regret it, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

So charmingly done. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to cut the cost of politics, yet the average cost of a completely unelected new peer is £150,000 a year. How many extra peers will he be appointing before the next general election? We have already seen the fastest appointment of peers of any Government in history.

[Mr Lansley]

We always made it clear on the Government Benches that if the House of Lords remained unreformed it would be necessary to enable it to better reflect the character of the outcome of the preceding general election. I will not reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but if the Opposition had supported House of Lords reform we would have been able to deal with that.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am going to make more progress—this is only a two-hour debate.

I am asking the House to maintain the boundary review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) reminded us earlier, it was my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister who said, quite rightly, on Third Reading of the Bill that became the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011:

“Fairness demands constituencies that are basically equal in size…there can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 864.]

I have heard no argument that changes that, nor any justification from the Lords to seek to do so.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. He rightly emphasises that the coalition agreement is an important document, but could he also remind the House that manifestos are important, and will he inform us all of the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge on reducing the number of MPs?

[Mr Lansley]

Again, my hon. Friend has the advantage of me, as I do not have the Liberal Democrat manifesto to hand. I will say from the Dispatch Box that the coalition agreement is important and that it set out our shared objective to introduce a Bill that included provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in a referendum—there was not such a positive result—as well as the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is therefore entirely part of the commitment made in the coalition agreement.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

When I entered the House, a colleague advised me to carry in my top pocket a couple of good jokes for speeches. I will read one from the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, which sadly my right hon. Friend does not have to hand. It is quite clear:

“we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150”—

full stop, end of quote. Why then are they not doing it? This would have been a good first step.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If I may, I put it to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches that they might like to explain their reasoning to my hon. Friend later in this debate.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I hope it may be helpful to him and the House to know that his colleague the Deputy Prime Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform on 19 April and 13 December last year, and I asked him the exact questions that Members have been asking in the last few minutes. He made it clear to the Committee that he still agreed with what he said at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading: that we have to put right what he called

“the broken scales of our democracy”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 515, c. 36.]

However, he also made it clear that although he considers the current system to be unfair, he is absolutely certain that that unfairness should continue until after the next general election. That is his position.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for informing it about the discussions in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. From my point of view, I know the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to constitutional reform. I think the boundaries review and the introduction of greater equality and fairness in constituencies and between voters is an important constitutional reform, and I hope he would want to see it put through before the next election.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will carry on for a moment, if I may.

Some argue that the boundaries review may spend further money this year and then not be approved—that argument was adduced in the Lords. One might equally say that several millions have been spent and the process should be completed. Either way, the amendments in lieu, if passed today, would settle that question. They would bring the review into effect without any further political interference, which, given the independent character of the review, has merit in any case.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith).

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. It is undoubtedly true that the question could be settled one way or another today. However, given that the Liberal Democrats are clear that they will not support him, is not the most sensible thing for the House to finish this and not waste any more money on it, rather than continue with the process when it has already been made clear that what was a very political initial manoeuvre is now doomed to fail?

[Mr Lansley]

I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my modest rhetoric might have no impact on my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Surely that is the whole point of this debate and, in particular, of my colleagues and I tabling the amendments in lieu—precisely because it would be in the interests of this House to settle the matter today. It would be in the interests of this House, not least in its relationship with their lordships, to say, “We have settled it today. The boundaries review should be completed, as we legislated for it to happen, and there should be no more interference by either House, for any reason or any party.” There is an independent review; it should be completed. Before we come to the amendments in lieu, however, we first have to decide whether the Lords were right to amend the Bill as they did.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me make this point, if I may. Let me put it plainly: I believe that what was done in the Lords was an abuse of the parliamentary process. We sent them a Bill concerning electoral registration; they inserted a provision outside the scope of the Bill. This is the first time that that has been done, and it was done contrary to the advice of their Clerks, who ruled that the amendment was not relevant to the Bill. It is also significant to note that the Cross Benchers in the Lords voted by two to one against inserting the boundaries amendment.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am not in the least surprised that the forces of reaction still come from the other place, but does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that now the forces of reaction are the party opposite and the party below the Aisle, on the Liberal Democrat Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I might say that the argument was put to the Members of the other House that in agreeing such an amendment, the Lords are seeking directly and dramatically to intervene in the structure of elections to this House. As my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde told peers in another place:

“How odd it would be if this unelected House…should have the temerity to tell the elected House how to proceed on its…election”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 568.]

How often did Opposition Members complain when they were in government if the unelected House sought to overrule the elected House? Let them contemplate this: how much stronger is that complaint, which I heard them make, when the view of this House is overruled in relation to the franchise to this House?

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

May I remind the Leader of the House that those of us on the SNP Benches were never in government? He will have no comfort from the Scottish National party. We will be voting against the Government’s proposals, even though the new boundaries would be to our advantage. Can he explain why the Conservatives are selecting candidates on the current boundaries, not the new boundaries?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very disappointed in what the hon. Gentleman says, because I would hope that Members of this House would attach immense weight to the primacy of this House in determining the franchise for this House and reject a move by the unelected House to seek to interfere with the previously settled will of this House.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Although Members in the other House might not care what voters think, because they do not have to face them, surely other colleagues in this House must care that all their electors would like the cost of Parliament reduced and for all votes to count as much as each other.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point well. Anybody who votes to agree with the Lords or not to disagree with them on this amendment will, I fear, have to explain to their electorate why they are not reducing the cost of politics when we are asking the public services generally to do that.

In what is colloquially known as the Hart-Rennard amendment we have not only an abuse of parliamentary process, but a democratic travesty. The unelected House is seeking to frustrate the precisely expressed will of this Parliament—not a previous Parliament—to deny fairness and equality in the franchise and fundamentally to manipulate the basis on which this House is to be elected.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this Government have appointed 125 new peers since 2010? Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the average cost is £130,000 a year, which adds an extra £16,250,000 a year to the cost of politics, or £81,250,000 over five years.

[Mr Lansley]

Leaving aside the fact that some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes were from the resignation honours back in 2010, I would say that he heard what I said about House of Lords reform. If he and his colleagues had supported the programme motion, we would be in a completely different place in the House of Lords.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

There is limited time for this debate and I need to conclude my speech.

I urge Members to recognise that democrats in all parts of this House should reject the Lords amendment. Even those who object to the boundaries reviews, whether for party, personal or other reasons, should reject the way in which the Lords have amended the Bill. In doing so, they would still have the option of voting for or against the review, in the subsequent vote on the amendment in lieu or, if it is rejected, in October when the boundaries reports come before the House for approval.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way finally to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal).

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. I can only sympathise with his travails over the abuse of powers on this issue by the House of Lords. Can he imagine how much worse it would have been if the House of Lords had been elected?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is inviting me to engage with a series of hypothetical situations. I will resist the temptation.

All four boundary commissions have completed their consultations and are finalising—

[Mr Straw]

rose—

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

Give way!

[Mr Lansley]

I will, but I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before and it took about five minutes.

[Mr Straw]

Could the Leader of the House now answer the clear question put by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart): why is the Conservative party selecting candidates on the existing boundaries, not those in the new Act?

[Mr Lansley]

As Leader of the House, I am answering for my party and for the Government—[Interruption.] My party will live very happily with the outcome of the boundary commissions’ review, I can tell you that. The boundary commissions are finalising their recommendations. They are doing that because this Parliament voted for that measure. This concerns a fundamental feature of our democracy—namely, the basis on which we are elected to this House.

[Paul Uppal]

On that point of principle about the democratic deficit, is there not an irony in the fact that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are often inspired by the Chartists, who voted for equal-sized constituencies? There is a perverse relationship today, in that those Members are going to go through the Lobby and vote to retain the disconnect and the democratic deficit.

[Mr Lansley]

I was right to give way to my hon. Friend; he has made a good point. That votes should be of equal value is a fundamental principle that we should seek. We voted for that in legislation earlier in this Parliament, and it is now our task to see it through. This must be fair, equitable and democratic. It is wholly wrong that these measures should be overturned by an unprecedented device in the other House. I therefore ask Members across the House to disagree with the Lords. Having done that, we can go on to decide whether positively to settle the boundaries today by voting for the amendment in lieu or to let the proposal come back as planned on the basis of the boundary commissions’ reports later this year. In the interests of democracy and equality, I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I first congratulate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that I am just warming up. If, during the course of my speech, I have not addressed the points she raises, she can intervene again later, once I am in full flow.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a link between the electoral register and the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the boundaries review—but that is a completely false connection. The 2015 election will be based on a register in its current form, not on individual electoral registration, either way—whether done through the boundaries review as planned or whether done without it. The Bill does not impact on that.

[Sadiq Khan]

The Leader of the House must be a fantastic poker player, as he said that with a straight face. I will give him a mini-lecture on why he is so wrong, on this issue as well, in a few moments. If he is still not persuaded, he can intervene and explain it to me again.

I have explained why we have sought to amend the Bill—both in this Chamber and in the other place—to include further mechanisms for maximising voter registration, particularly for the harder-to-reach sections of our communities. The importance of doing all in our power to avoid a sharp drop-off in registration levels was brought home by the experience of Northern Ireland, recently re-emphasised in the Electoral Commission report.

We know that those most likely to fall off the register are not sprinkled uniformly across the country. Each constituency does not have its equal share of missing voters. Instead, it is generally accepted that the missing eligible voters are likely to be from black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, the more transient residents who live in rented accommodation such as students and young people, the elderly and the disabled and those in more deprived communities. The Leader of the House and his Back Benchers talked about equality and fairness, but the Electoral Commission has reported that

“under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%)”.

It also found that

“the highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation.”

These millions missing from the register would not count in the calculations for the setting of parliamentary boundaries. Any boundaries produced would be skewed and would be open to questions about their legitimacy. That should worry us all.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Tuesday 29 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the HGV Road User Levy Bill.

Wednesday 30 January—General debate on Europe.

Thursday 31 January—Consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, followed by debate on a motion relating to the Liaison Committee’s report on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.



Friday 1 February—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 4 February—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 5 February—Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Wednesday 6 February—Opposition Day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 7 February—Debate on a motion relating to subsidies for new nuclear, followed by general debate on the closure of A and E departments. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

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

Thursday 14 February—Debate on eating disorder awareness.

[Ms Eagle]

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

Yesterday’s Opposition day debate on the disgraceful blacklisting of trade unionists who raised safety concerns, along with other workers in the building sector, was very powerful. Members highlighted the devastating impact that the practice had on construction workers and their families across the country over many years. Although there is legal action by some of those affected, we still do not know the extent of the practice or who was involved, which is why we called in yesterday’s motion for a full inquiry to get at the truth. The Government did not oppose our motion yesterday, which we welcome, so could the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to make a statement quickly on what action Ministers will now take to stop this practice ever happening again?

This week the International Monetary Fund cut its growth forecast for the UK, and this morning its chief economist called for a reassessment of the Government’s fiscal policy. Moreover, December’s figures showed Government borrowing up 4% year on year. It is up because the Government’s economic strategy is failing, and it is hard-pressed families who are paying the price.

Yesterday in this House the Prime Minister was asked about food banks. The chief executive of the Trussell Trust said that his answer was “manipulating the numbers”. The number of people turning to food banks for support has increased by 90,000 since the election. This year it is expected that 250,000 people will need help from food banks to get by. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions obstinately refuse to visit a food bank to see for themselves the consequences of their failing economic strategy, so may we have a debate in Government time on food banks?

Ministers claim that the Government’s flagship energy efficiency programme, the green deal, will enable thousands of householders to take out a loan to make their homes more energy efficient. Having scrapped schemes introduced by the last Labour Government which helped to make thousands of homes more energy efficient, the Government have a new scheme, which has been months in preparation. Forty organisations are involved and 600 trained builders are on stand-by, ready to spring into action, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change admitted this week that just five households had benefited. The Federation of Master Builders had a simple explanation for this failing policy: it said that the Government had done too little, too late to promote the scheme. Given the recent freezing weather and the inevitable impact on people’s energy bills, could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the latest Government shambles?

Last week I warned that those on the increasingly fractious Government Front Bench were at risk of turning on each other. On cue, we had a petulant outburst from the Department for Education, when a Government source blasted the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a former Education Minister, as a

“lazy incompetent narcissist obsessed only with self-promotion.”

I am puzzled by who the DFE source could be. It could not have been a civil servant or a special adviser, because what happened is clearly against the special advisers code of conduct. Who does that leave? Could we have an urgent statement from the Education Secretary to clear the matter up?

The Leader of the House has announced a debate next week on Europe. Ahead of that debate, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether enabling legislation would be needed for a referendum to happen? Could he also confirm that the reason why there has been no Government statement on Europe is that the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday was not announcing Government policy? In next week’s debate, therefore, will the Foreign Secretary be speaking for the Government or the Conservative party?

The Leader of the House will recall that, a little over a year ago, he and I both voted against an in/out referendum. It is not immediately apparent what seismic events have occurred in European affairs to prompt Conservative Ministers to have a damascene conversion on this issue. Two Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries were fired for voting in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Will those Eurosceptic martyrs now be reinstated to Government? Will they be reinstated now that the Prime Minister has joined the headbangers in obsessing about Europe rather than tackling the effects of his failing economic policies?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her further questions. I was grateful to her and other Opposition Members for giving the House good notice of yesterday’s Opposition day debate on blacklisting, following our exchanges at business questions last week. That certainly assisted the debate, during which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) said that the evidence available to date did not merit a new inquiry, but that it would be a serious matter if new evidence came to light that those practices were continuing. He asked anyone with information about the practice continuing to get in touch with the relevant authorities. I echo that request.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about economic forecasts. Our forecast was set out in the autumn statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It was produced independently—something that was never done under the previous Government, who published their own manipulated forecasts. The International Monetary Fund has forecast that growth in the United Kingdom this year and next year will exceed that of the eurozone. So, notwithstanding the OBR’s statement that the crisis in the eurozone has been a “major drag” on performance in this country, given that that is our principal market, we are none the less able to expect higher growth than the eurozone.

We have discussed food banks at business questions, and I have said that I visited a food bank in Loughborough with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). The Prime Minister has also answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions on many occasions. I will simply reiterate that, on 9 January, the director of the UK food bank network said:

“I think the need has been there for a while. The growth in volunteers, and awareness about the fact you can get this help if you need it, help to explain the growth this year.”

The hon. Lady made no reference, of course, to the employment statistics that were published yesterday. They showed that employment is now at a record high, and that it increased last year by 552,000—the largest increase in one year since 1989. Time might not have permitted her to refer to the crime statistics published this morning, which show an 8% reduction in crime, year on year, to September 2012. That is extremely welcome.

The hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe. I fear that she did not explain what the policy of the Labour party was, however, but I think we know. The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that Labour was opposed to an in/out referendum. So, as we discovered last week, the right hon. Gentleman believes that powers should come back to this country from Europe, but he has no mechanism by which he would seek to achieve that. He also has no basis on which to ask the British public for their consent to such a settlement. I am afraid that the Labour party has a problem. It has no interest in a new vision for Europe, such as the one the Prime Minister set out yesterday. That vision is attracting support right across Europe, including from the Finnish, Czech, Dutch and Danish Governments. They recognise that what is required is a more flexible, more competitive and more open Europe that is democratically accountable. As Leader of the House, I believe that what the Prime Minister said about the primacy of national Parliaments in securing democratic accountability was most important. But Labour has no vision for Europe, no trust in the British people and no support for democracy.

My final point is that the shadow Leader of the House might have a small problem with democracy. There was a local government by-election in her constituency in the Wirral. In that by-election, sadly occasioned by the death of the sitting member, in Leasowe and Morton East—a ward Labour won last year by a majority of 318—Ian Lewis, the Conservative candidate won by a majority of 265 votes. On the same day, in the neighbouring constituency of Wirral South, in a by-election in Heswall ward, the Conservative Kathryn Hodson overturned a Labour majority and won the seat, pushing the Labour party, which held the seat last year, into third place.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House have any views on what will happen in next week’s local government by-elections following the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe? I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has granted a debate on Europe so that all the party leaders can make their position quite clear—with the Prime Minister saying we want an in/out referendum, the Leader of the Opposition opposed to it and the Liberal Democrats facing both ways.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It seems to me that next week’s business, including as it does a general debate on Europe, affords an excellent opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to set out the Government’s position—and in so doing, he may well refer to the Conservative party’s policies for beyond the next election. That should provide a real opportunity for the Conservatives to maximise the Conservative vote at any by-election.

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

Should we not have a statement today from the Home Secretary on the 16,000 immigration cases that have been found by the chief inspector of borders and immigration—in addition to the number of cases found last year—with boxes being found in all kinds of places, unknown to the UK Border Agency? When is the Home Secretary going to get a grip on the situation after nearly three years in office and stop blaming her predecessor?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, this is an historical problem. It would not arise now because the reconsideration of those rejected applications could not happen under the current policy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has made it clear that this is being dealt with and that such a situation would not be allowed to arise again. As I have made clear in business questions before, the chief inspector of borders and immigration is equally clear that performance is being turned around. The Minister has said that he is not satisfied with the performance of the UK Borders Agency and the chief executive is not satisfied with it: they are taking every measure to ensure that it is improved in the future.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the mis-selling of interest rate swap products by the banks to small and medium-sized enterprises, on the speed with which these matters are being resolved and on the fact that businesses across the country are facing bankruptcy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I know is a matter of concern for many Members that have small businesses across their constituencies. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I cannot recall precisely who is investigating the problem at the moment—it may be the Office of Fair Trading, but I am not sure.

[Mr Williams]

The Financial Services Authority.

[Mr Lansley]

The FSA—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting me. The FSA is investigating the matter. As we have discussed at business questions before, it is important to try to help small businesses in the interim, but it is particularly important that the FSA pursues its investigation with rigour. I know it will.

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

May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s red lines on their negotiations with Europe? We know that the Prime Minister is going to take a tough line on this issue, but we do not know what he is taking a tough line on. Will he make a statement to clarify what the red lines are?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I announced a general debate on Europe next Wednesday. I know that one key aspect of that debate will be the Foreign Secretary setting out how the balance of competences review is under way. The Government are pursuing that now. The first set of reports covering four semesters has already been published and is open for consultation. I hope Members will have an opportunity to respond before February.

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

Tomorrow, I will be hosting an event at Warwickshire college with the Minister with responsibility for creative industries. This event is partnered by the Gazelle Local initiative and is spearheaded by the college’s principal, Mariane Cavalli. The aim is to create an entrepreneurial college, building on partnerships with employers, entrepreneurs and social enterprises, with the potential to make our colleges engines for growth. Will the Leader of the House commit Government time for a debate on how our further education colleges can collaborate better with businesses to prepare our young people for work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I welcome his comments about FE colleges getting together with employers in his constituency. Colleagues from across the House and I met the principals of FE colleges who visited Westminster yesterday evening to discuss just these issues. There are many opportunities now for FE colleges, which they are taking, to get involved, together with local enterprise partnerships, to maximise participation in apprenticeships programmes and work experience. What the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), recently said about traineeships adds to the opportunities for FE colleges to equip young people for work.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House may be aware of the tragic case of my constituent, the Indian student Souvik Pal, who went missing on new year’s eve in Manchester, and whose body was tragically found this week. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not also be aware of the huge publicity that this case has received in India. Taken together with the callous and brutal murder of Anuj Bidve in Manchester on Boxing day last year, there is now growing concern that Indian students and their families will be put off studying in the UK. May I ask for a statement or some Government action on this important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I am indeed aware of these tragic and very disturbing cases, as I know the House is, and we share the concern that the hon. Lady expresses on behalf of her constituents. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was recently in India and had the opportunity to discuss with the Indian Government many issues, including students coming here, and was able to reassure them. However, I will talk to my right hon. Friend and see whether there is any further means by which she can provide the necessary reassurance.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

May we have a statement on departmental responses to letters? Despite 11 attempts over five months to get a response from the Treasury to a constituent’s query, I have so far failed. I very much hope that the Leader of the House can help to sort this out.

[Mr Lansley]

If my hon. Friend or Members across the House experience failures on the part of Departments, I hope Ministers will respond and take action. However, if I can be of any assistance, I will. I will certainly be in touch with the Treasury and will perhaps encourage my colleagues there to respond to my hon. Friend before they answer questions here next Tuesday.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give a rather positive answer to a question I asked last week about whether the debate on preventing violence against women could happen on the international day of action against violence against women, on 14 February. Can he say whether he expects the Backbench Business Committee to be allocated that day, so that I can see whether we might get our debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I if may, I shall simply smile delphically at the hon. Lady. These are matters that we keep closely in touch with the Backbench Business Committee about.

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

The Ormiston Forge Academy in my constituency is using its new freedoms to develop innovative relationships with business to improve the teaching of science and other technical subjects. May we have a debate about how academies are using their new freedoms to improve the educational experience of children in such subjects?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I agree: it has been extremely encouraging to see the considerable progress that has been made, not least with academies and free schools taking such opportunities. For example, on EBacc take-up, in 2013 the number of pupils taking triple science will have gone up by 82%. That and other increases in the number of science students are very important for the future competitiveness and success of our students.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware that a massacre of London’s police stations, including Wanstead police station in my constituency, is under way. Apart from anything else, it is funny that Boris did not mention it until his campaign was over and he had been elected. Given the number of closures that are in the pipeline, may we have a statement from the relevant Home Office Minister?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, consultations are taking place about police stations across London. Responsibility lies with the police authority and with the Mayor in his capacity as commissioner, but I will of course raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the postmen and postwomen who have worked so hard to deliver residential and business post during the period of bad weather? May we have a debate on Royal Mail and the provision of 4X4 vehicles for rural areas, which would enable parts of Shropshire that have not received their post to start to receive it if the snow continues?

[Mr Lansley]

I share my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the postal service. My constituents and I have experienced no interruption in mail deliveries, which is important and welcome, and I congratulate Royal Mail on its work. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) whether the Department, or indeed Royal Mail itself, could tell my hon. Friend a little more about how Royal Mail is equipping itself to ensure that deliveries are not interrupted.

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

When can we expect an announcement about future business in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

Regrettably, I am not in a position to add to what I have said thus far, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I have any more information about the future business that is planned.

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

May we have a statement on motorway safety and the use of chevron markings? Many accidents occur because cars are travelling too close to each other, and the markings are a simple and cost-effective way of encouraging the keeping of safer distances between them. I have not been able to establish from answers to parliamentary questions whether there is a strategy for the provision of more markings. The M3 has none at all. I should appreciate the support of the Leader of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the benefit of chevron markings. There is a point on the M11, which I use a great deal, where they are very helpful in maintaining space in traffic, particularly as it is a two-line highway. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) whether my hon. Friend, and perhaps other Members, could be given more information about the road safety programme on the highways.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on fair access to universities? Yesterday’s announcement that AS-levels would no longer count towards A-levels was greeted with almost universal opposition. The University of Cambridge, for instance, said that the change would

“jeopardise…a decade’s progress towards fairer access”.

Is not ignoring everyone’s views on a subject a particularly dangerous form of narcissism?

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased to note that, having not managed to introduce his argument during questions on yesterday’s statement, the hon. Gentleman has returned to it now. I like to think that business questions give Members a second chance.

The University of Cambridge, part of which is in my constituency, has sought on occasion to use its own attainment test because of its lack of confidence in its ability to distinguish between candidates on the basis of A-levels. Yesterday evening I spoke to the principal of Hills Road sixth-form college in Cambridge, which used to be in my constituency, and which sends as many candidates to Oxford and Cambridge as any institution anywhere in the country. I am confident that, along with other routes, the retention of AS-levels, although they will no longer contribute directly to A-levels, will give that college an opportunity to demonstrate that its students have the capacity to excel at the best universities.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) for a debate on science and technology, because 100 years ago Birmingham and the west midlands was known as the workshop of the world and in this century it must be the science lab of the world? May we have a debate on not only how we encourage students to study those subjects, but how we encourage scientists and technologists into the classroom to inspire them?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I entirely agree with him. Our Government’s reforms to curriculum, qualifications, teaching and the schools system will support better science and technology education. They include: a strengthened mathematics and science curriculum; more rigorous key stage 4 qualifications; and, not least, attracting more graduates with the appropriate qualifications into teaching by offering bursaries of up to £20,000. We all know that the ability to teach science and maths effectively for students often depends on teachers having the appropriate specialist qualifications.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

As we do not appear to be overwhelmed with Government business, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the plight of disabled people under this Government? Like many other hon. Members, I am now receiving letters from disabled people who are in despair at the cuts they are facing. One gentleman wrote to me last week saying that he believes the answer for him is the introduction of voluntary euthanasia. Is it not about time we had a proper debate on these issues?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if anybody should ever feel that, because it is absolutely not necessary. As the Prime Minister has clearly said, and as I have reiterated, the changes to benefits for disabled people, including the personal independence payments, will focus more resources on those most in need with disabilities. I also dispute what the hon. Lady said about the business. This week five Government Bills are being considered in this House and five are being considered in the other House—that is a busy programme.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the use of police cautions? This week, we have had the case of a burglar who admitted 113 offences and was given a caution by Surrey police. Surely that is a totally inappropriate use of a police caution. That person should not have been seen at a magistrates court; somebody who commits 113 burglaries should be dealt with at a Crown court.

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. Of course, we must be careful, as the Executive, not to trespass on the prosecuting decisions of the prosecuting authorities, but I will raise the points he makes with my colleagues at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

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

Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the large number of bankruptcies, including the recent ones at Comet and HMV, and those at many small businesses up and down the country? Is he also concerned about the growing evidence of a big question mark over the ethics of the people who carry out the process and administration of bankruptcy? The way they work it means that they suck all the lifeblood out of what remains in the business and leave nothing for the creditors. May we have a debate on this corrupt process, which goes to the very top of some of our big accountancy companies?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I make no comment on his closing remarks. In this Parliament, we have legislated for a reform of insolvency practices. A review is under way to look at some of the ways in which the claims of creditors can best be met during insolvency. I share his concern where bankruptcies occur, but I would also point out that in the past year for which figures are available—I believe it was 2011—we had the highest rate of new business formation in this country for a long time.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituent Jason Durk was recently charged £60 for an urgent prescription that was unavailable from local pharmacies, apart from the hospital dispensary. The alternative for him was to visit accident and emergency, where he would have paid only £7.20. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on joined-up budgets in primary care to prevent this very unfortunate situation where somebody who was desperate to receive medical attention had to pay a ridiculous sum of money?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond to my hon. Friend on that point. There is a distinction between access to prescription medicines, which attract the normal prescription charge—my hon. Friend and the House will recall that some 90% of all prescriptions are free—and access to medicines that are supplied in an emergency, which attract a higher charge. That is not about a prescription but about the cost of providing medicines in an emergency.

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

Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), the Leader of the House might be interested to know that a written answer I received on 15 January showed that between 2010 and 2012 the number of days it took to receive a decision on tier 1 visa applications made from within the UK went up from 30 to 83. In the same period, the number of cases taking more than four weeks to process has gone up from 25,000 to just under 64,000—all while this Government have been in office. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister makes an urgent statement on that process, as those figures do not show the progress he mentioned earlier?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate the points I made earlier. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has made it very clear that he does not yet regard the performance as satisfactory, and nor does the chief executive of the UK Border Agency. I will of course encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to find opportunities to update the House during questions and at other times about improvements in performance at the UKBA.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Yesterday in the European Parliament there were some important votes on reform of the common agricultural policy. That subject is important for producers and consumers of food. Will the Leader of the House set aside some time so that Ministers can set out their views and hon. Members can reflect their constituents’ concerns about this important matter?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, that is important. He will know that as those measures make progress the opportunity to consider them will be offered to the European Scrutiny Committee, which will decide whether it should be debated in Committee or on the Floor of the House. We will have to wait and see, but reform of the CAP has been a continuing priority of this Government. As the Prime Minister’s speech set out yesterday, it is an illustration in one very important area of the importance of the single market and of how the single market must promote competitiveness, ensuring that not only producers but consumers get the best deal.

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

May we have a debate on the challenges facing Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust? The Leader of the House will know from his former role that there is a question mark over whether the forthcoming review of services will result in the retaining of key services, such as a full maternity unit, at Furness general hospital. There is also a need for lessons to be learned about the great failings at the trust over recent years.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is right—I am very familiar with the issues at the trust and had opportunities in the past to meet the staff and visit Furness general hospital. I will not venture any view about the outcome of the review, but I shall certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health to correspond with him and give him an idea about the process and any emerging conclusions.

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

The Secretary of State for Education has taken significant steps to reintroduce rigour into the examination system, yet my constituents will not necessarily benefit from that because of the devolved settlement and the different approaches taken in different parts of the UK. May we have a debate on the examination system to provide clarity and certainty to employers and universities who want to know the differences in the approaches of the various authorities around the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least because he speaks from a Welsh perspective. There was recently a debate in Opposition time on reform of the exam system, which provided an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to demonstrate that our reforms are replacing GCSEs with rigorous world-class examinations, for example. We are setting out to ensure not only that standards are set and maintained in core subjects but that our examination system and curriculum match the best in the world.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Ovarian cancer is called the silent killer, as its symptoms go unrecognised and spread quickly. We could save the lives of 500 women a year if our services matched the best in Europe. Can we have a debate on how to improve awareness of the symptoms among both women and GPs, so that we can catch this cancer earlier?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The disparity in survival outcomes for some of the main cancers is at the heart of the improving outcomes strategy for cancer that the Government set out; indeed, I set it out when I was Secretary of State for Health. I visited the very large-scale research project on ovarian cancer. From memory, I think 200,000 women formed part of that trial, which should soon—in the next couple of years or so—start to give us results that might lead to much better options for screening for ovarian cancer, and hence early access to treatment.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on the long-standing problem of interference on licensed radio stations, particularly in London and south-east England, from illegitimate broadcasters?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend tempts me a little. He will remember “The Boat that Rocked”, a recent film that was in part about trying to suppress pirate radio stations. When I watched it with my wife, I had to confess to her that in the mid-1980s, as Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry with responsibility for the Radiocommunications Agency, I was the official sending teams out to shut down pirate radio stations. Happily, that is now Ofcom’s responsibility, and I will of course ask the chief executive of Ofcom to let my hon. Friend know what steps it is taking to ensure that the integrity of broadcasting on the spectrum is maintained.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Britain is now set to renegotiate its relationship with the European Union. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that a first priority in the negotiations should be to seek to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and re-establish Britain’s historical fishing limits? May I also suggest that in next week’s debate, the Government come forward with proposals on the common fisheries policy, and perhaps think about using the Norwegian model as a basis for the future?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of next Wednesday’s debate on Europe to raise those issues. I know the Prime Minister referred, in his speech yesterday, to reform of the common fisheries policy as an issue, and included in that is the question of the balance of powers and competences. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hear from the Foreign Secretary in that debate about how our balance of competences review, which will be conducted by the Government during this Parliament, will inform the renegotiation and allow us to secure some return of powers.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In the Prime Minister’s speech on the European Union yesterday, he properly and rightly drew our attention to the importance of the single market, and said that it should include energy. I would say that the key theme should be competition and connectivity. Will the Lord Privy Seal have discussions with his ministerial colleagues to make sure that we have something significant to say on that soon?

[Mr Lansley]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view. Indeed, one of the most remarked-on things about the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday was that it was directed not just at Britain, but the whole of Europe. All of us in wider Europe need to create a more flexible and competitive Europe; that goes particularly for eurozone countries, whatever their needs may be in terms of integration in the eurozone. As for energy, when it comes to being part of a single market and meeting the 2014 deadline, delivering that kind of competition is exactly what we need to do to demonstrate the benefits of European Union membership.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Yesterday, my constituent Terry Renshaw came to London, alongside his more famous former workmate, Ricky Tomlinson, and other members of the Shrewsbury 24 group, to get the Government to consider releasing papers relating to their 1972 trial. May we have an early debate on the release of those papers, particularly as the Government signed an order this very month to prevent their release until 2022, which will impact considerably on the group’s ability to put to the Criminal Cases Review Commission the case for looking at the matter again?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter on behalf of his constituents and others. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to respond to him. I will also, if I may, take an interest in that response, because these are not issues with which I am very familiar, but I will be glad to see what she has to say on the matter.

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

Primary schools in my constituency have told me of the challenges that they are facing from the growing demand for places and the pressure that this is causing, particularly on capital budgets. I do not think that it is just a local issue. It is affecting primary schools up and down the country. May we please have a debate to discuss what is being done to ensure that schools can cope with the growing demand for places?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes; my hon. Friend raises an important point. The problem is not confined to his constituency. The number of live births in this country began to rise in 2001 and since then, through to 2011, there has been about a 16% increase, so we have rising rolls in primary schools. The Building Schools for the Future plans of the previous Government did nothing to help primary schools respond to that. My hon. Friends in the Department for Education have been doing that, and through the spending review we are making available £2.7 billion to target local authority areas needing to provide places. I know that my hon. Friend will have seen in the capital allocations particular emphasis on meeting basic needs in the education system, which of course includes areas where demography demonstrates that capacity of schools is not sufficient.

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

May we have a debate on why the Prime Minister says in a Tory party advert that he plans to pay off the nation’s debt, when in fact the Prime Minister plans to increase the national debt by 60%, according to his own Treasury forecast—a percentage that would be larger than in any other European nation?

[Mr Lansley]

It gets a bit rich, doesn’t it—the Labour party talking about debt. The debt would have been so much worse if we had carried on in the profligate way of the Labour Government. We came together as a coalition Government recognising that in the national interest we have to reduce the deficit. We have reduced the deficit by a quarter. It is a programme set out by the Chancellor in his original Budget in 2010 and maintained ever since to eliminate the structural deficit. It is a formidable task. It will not happen in one year. It will happen by 2017, and from that point we will stop the growth of the national debt, which doubled under the previous Government.

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

Plymouth university, the city council and the chamber of commerce are all seeking to bid for the Government’s city initiative. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on how such Government initiatives are helping cities and towns such as Plymouth, where 38% of working people work in the public sector, and how that can help to rebalance the economy?

[Mr Lansley]

The initial city deals in the largest cities demonstrated how those can energise economic potential by bringing people together and allowing them to think not in terms of what local authorities, universities, chambers of commerce, local enterprise partnerships and central Government do individually, but to put all that together. I will not be parochial, but Cambridge is also submitting an expression of interest in the next round of city deals. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about whether we might find an opportunity for some of the cities that are coming forward with new expressions of interest in city deals to have, in effect, a shop window to say how they would use that flexibility.

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

In Hull North seven members of the Hooper family, including a disabled five-year-old child, will lose £80 a month because under the coalition’s bedroom tax, they are under-occupying their four-bedroom house. On 8 January, Hull city council told me that it had 73 one and two-bedroomed properties available for households needing a smaller property, but 4,700 tenants will be hit by the bedroom tax. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the shambles that this unfair policy will cause up and down the country?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady and her party need to recognise that when, as I and many hon. Members know, very large numbers of people are seeking access to social housing and we have large numbers of under-occupied houses, it is necessary to do something about it. If the hon. Lady wants to raise the issue, she will have the opportunity at questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his colleagues on Monday.

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

Concerns have been raised in my constituency about problem gambling and the operation of fixed-odds betting terminals. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the impact of problem gambling on local communities?

[Mr Lansley]

There will be a debate on offshore gambling tomorrow, so if my hon. Friend is here and able to contribute he might find that it will be in order to refer to some of those issues. Although gambling is an important and legitimate industry, I entirely share his concern, and there are limits that we must be sure we understand and police. As he will know, some useful analytical research has been done to help to understand what impact changes in the legal framework for gambling might have had on problem gambling.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Payment protection insurance mis-selling appears to have spawned another abuse: people are being subjected to unsolicited texts, e-mails and phone calls. In addition, spurious claims then have to be defended by businesses, such as those in my constituency, which is putting them at risk. Is it not time we had a debate on the behaviour of claims management companies?

[Mr Lansley]

My memory is that the issue was raised in the Backbench Business Committee’s discussions, but I cannot be sure at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I might talk with the Chair of the Committee. I think that it might have scheduled the debate and that it has already taken place, but I just do not remember entirely. However, there are certainly important opportunities for us to debate that.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 965, which is about using the extra revenue raised by the new 45p rate of tax?

[That this House notes newspaper reports that the top rate of income tax is expected to raise more money when it falls to 45 pence, not less, as fewer will avoid it; further notes that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Treasury have estimated that £7 billion was lost when the top rate was raised by the previous administration to 50 pence; concludes therefore that when the economy recovers, any extra revenues gained from the rich by the cut in the top rate should be used to pay for lower taxes on lower earners, for example by restoring the starter 10 pence rate of income tax; and finally notes that a new generous 10 pence band between £9,440 and £12,000 would be worth at least £250 annually to British workers, and would lift everyone on the minimum wage at least halfway towards earning the living wage in cash terms.]

Will he consider having a debate on the subject so that we can see whether we could use the extra revenue to restore the 10p income tax rate and lower tax for lower earners?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen that early-day motion—we have discussed it in previous business questions. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising it, including, if I recall correctly, during Northern Ireland questions. He is so assiduous in these matters that I think no Government Minister can be unaware of the point he is making. However, it is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged the If campaign on world hunger and confirmed that he wants to see the issue addressed at the G8 summit he will host. We also know that many other issues are being canvassed for consideration at the summit, ranging from tax evasion to the impact of speculation on commodity prices, climate change and banking. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will ensure that there will be adequate debate in Government time in advance of the summit to address those issues so that they do not all have to vie with each other for hard-pressed Back-Bench business time?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes an important point. The House had an opportunity to debate global hunger yesterday in Westminster Hall, and I know that will not be the last opportunity. It might be for the usual channels, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee, to discuss how and when the priorities for the G8 summit, including, as he rightly says, the Enough Food for Everyone campaign, are debated by the House prior to the summit.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the success of our free schools policy? The Hindu free school in my constituency is heavily oversubscribed and the I-Foundation is now applying for a network of Hindu free schools across the country so that parents, if they wish, can choose a Hindu ethos for their children’s education.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am surprised that the Labour party appears to be openly sceptical about free schools, 79 of which have opened in little more than two years. They are playing an important part in increasing the diversity and character of state education. No doubt my hon. Friend has in mind the Avanti House free school in his constituency. I hope that it and other free schools will continue to demonstrate that they can create not only a more diverse and appropriate range in state education, but higher standards by responding directly to the needs and wishes of parents and pupils.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Last year, one of Lancashire’s best public schools, Queen Elizabeth’s grammar school in Blackburn, applied to become a state school under the Government’s free schools programme. If approved, this will mean that a school to which for years only the wealthy could send their children will be open to all, free of charge. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is a great example of the Government’s free schools policy in improving choice in education? May I therefore join other hon. Members in calling for a debate on the free schools policy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very encouraging that we do not have to see a binary divide, as it were, between independent education and state education, and to know that there is an opportunity for the very best to be available to pupils, wherever they come from and whatever their circumstances. I know, as he does, that free schools are part of that. In addition to the free schools that are already open in my area, 100 more are due to open this year, including one in my constituency.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 21 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Wednesday 23 January—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 January—Debate on a motion relating to reducing the voting age, followed by general debate on the Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Tuesday 29 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the HGV Road User Levy Bill.

Wednesday 30 January—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 31 January—Consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 1 February—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 31 January will be:

Thursday 31 January—Debate on the 30th anniversary of S4C, followed by debate on the military justice system.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business. May I also thank him for the written statement today on public reading stages for Bills?

We welcome the announcement that the House will debate, on a Back-Bench business motion, Holocaust memorial day. It is right that we remember the premeditated murder of millions of people, mostly Jews, during the holocaust.

We agree with the Government’s decision to provide logistical support for the French operation in Mali. The brutal rebel regime has been terrorising the civilian population. Its links with al-Qaeda pose a security threat. The killing of two oil workers in Algeria and the kidnapping of more than 20 of their colleagues shows that the threat from al-Qaeda remains serious. This is an extremely dangerous and, for the families, deeply worrying situation. We recognise that Ministers might be limited in what they can say in public until the situation is resolved, but will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the Government keep the House updated when it is appropriate to do so?

We are less than three weeks into the new year, and three major retailers have gone into administration. First Jessops, then this week HMV and Blockbuster. More than 10,000 retail jobs have gone or are at risk, impacting on communities across the country. The growth of online business has had a major impact on the structure of the retail economy, but the hollowing out of our high streets has a detrimental effect on local communities. The Government could support the change in the retail sector by ensuring that global online retailers paid their fair share of tax here in the UK. It has also been revealed this week that Ministers have been including unpaid work experience posts in their employment figures. So, while real jobs are disappearing on the high street, Ministers have spent their time conniving to boost artificially the employment figures. May we have an urgent statement on that from the Business Secretary?

Students at Stanford university were last week regaled by Mr Steve Hilton’s accounts of his time in No. 10. He told them:

“Very often you’ll wake up in the morning and hear on the…news”—

a Government announcement—

“…and you think…it’s not just that we didn’t know it was happening, but we don’t even agree with it!”

None of us was in the least surprised by that observation. After all, Mr Oliver Dowden, the deputy chief of staff at No. 10, said he was

“surprised on a day-to-day basis”

by his own Government’s announcements. The fact that the Government’s aides wander the world saying that No. 10 is a shambles does raise the question of who is responsible.

This week, we learned that Ministers have found someone new to blame: the civil service. The list of those the Government have blamed for their difficulties keeps on growing. We have had the weather—at different times, it has been too hot, too cold, too windy or too wet for the economy to grow. We have had Her Majesty, for having a diamond jubilee, we have had the Olympics for distracting us, and the Deputy Prime Minister has been blamed for just about everything. Next, they will be turning on each other. Oh—they are.

That brings me to Europe. The Prime Minister told The Sun in 2009 that

“if we win that election, we cannot afford to waste time having a row with Europe.”

Well, the Conservatives did not win the election, and they are having a row about Europe. The Prime Minister has decided that crossing the North sea to Holland will put sufficient distance between him and his Back Benchers to allow him safely to deliver his European speech. No doubt the Dutch people are eagerly anticipating his remarks, but will the Leader of the House suggest to the Prime Minister that he might choose to make a statement to this House?

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, we had questions but no answers, so perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us this: is it the Government’s intention that the UK will be a full member of the European Union in five years’ time? The Prime Minister refuses to answer, but Cabinet Ministers have been falling over each other to offer different answers. The Local Government Secretary said that he might vote to leave; the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), thinks the idea is barking; the Education Secretary thinks that it might be a good idea to leave; and the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that it would have a chilling effect on our economy. I can quite understand why the Foreign Secretary, witnessing all that, decided to go and spend some time in Australia. Given that we had two statements on Leveson, are we now going to have three on Europe: one by the Deputy Prime Minister, one by the Prime Minister, and one by rebel Tory Cabinet Ministers? There we have it: the Government are divided, the Prime Minister has lost control, and party management is trumping the national interest. It is Maastricht all over again.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her comments, and particularly for her welcome for the written ministerial statement on public reading stages. I also share her welcome for the Backbench Business Committee’s decision to timetable a debate on Holocaust memorial day. I am a supporter of the Holocaust Educational Trust and a member of its council, and I have been with students to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I know many Members have done. Holocaust memorial day is an occasion on which we can commemorate and understand the nature of that horror. It helps us to understand the applications of that genocide to the issues of today, and the horrors that man unfortunately still tends to visit on other members of mankind.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about Mali. She will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), made a statement on that matter earlier in the week. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that the House is updated on that issue, and, when it is appropriate to do so, on the events in Algeria. The Government condemn what has happened there. We are acting in concert with our allies in response. We send our condolences to the families of this and other countries’ nationals who have been killed and captured, but we will not rest from trying to recover those who have been kidnapped.

The hon. Lady asked about the high street, and she will recall the Portas review. The Government are supporting regeneration in the high street, but she and the House must understand completely that the Government cannot stand in the way of change in the economy—and changes are taking place, which will impact on high-street retailers. Some high-street retailers will succeed and prosper; others unfortunately will not. One of the key things that this Government have set out to do is always to try to ensure that we give the private sector an opportunity to grow. The evidence for that—the hon. Lady neglected to put it before the House—is the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the private sector since the general election. That is precisely what this Government are doing.

I was amused, but I was not much questioned by the shadow Leader of the House on some other issues. A former civil servant myself, I have seen press reports suggesting that the Prime Minister referred to “Yes Minister” as a documentary, but I am not aware that he did; I think I did in the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

A leadership bid!

[Mr Lansley]

I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. For the purposes of “Yes Minister”, I have been both Bernard and Jim Hacker. What I can say with great confidence—I know it is true of this coalition Government—is that as my esteemed colleague Lord Fowler once said, “Ministers decide.” That is true; Ministers do decide. We take the decisions and we take the responsibility.

Finally, I do not want to chide the shadow Leader of the House too much, but once again she and her colleagues have not given notice to the House today of what the business might be for the Opposition day next Wednesday. I wonder whether they lack options. If they feel that they do, let me suggest gently, given that the hon. Lady was talking about and asking questions about Europe, that the Opposition might like to have a debate on Europe. Then we might discover the Labour party’s policy on Europe. As far as I can see, the Leader of the Opposition is willing to go on the radio and say that there are areas in which Britain needs powers back, but not to endorse the idea of a negotiation, the purpose of which is to achieve that. I thus have no idea what the Labour party’s approach might be.

Following the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) saying in a debate on the welfare benefits uprating that he was

“happy to debate priorities within”—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 217]—

the spending envelope, perhaps we could have a debate on that so that we can hear the Labour party’s proposals. Otherwise, we could have a debate on the elasticity of money supply, since the Labour party has made proposals for additional taxes, which would raise something over £2 billion, but appears to believe that that money is capable of matching spending pledges of more than £30 billion. Elasticity of money supply seems to be the Labour party’s approach.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that from January next year 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will potentially have access to the UK under the free movement directive. This Government are at risk of exhibiting institutionalised torpor on this issue. There has been no proper liaison with local authorities, no proper analysis of the likely numbers coming here and no analysis of whether we can vary the free movement directive to protect our core public services and our employment market. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to look at this matter as a matter of urgency, because we have only 11 months left?

[Mr Lansley]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are actively considering the issue. Rather than adopting the last Government’s attitude to the accession of member states, we are deploying as much of the extension of transitional measures as is available to us. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government are in contact with local government representatives, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is leading a ministerial group which is considering matters relating to access to benefits and other services for those who come here. We do not want to exaggerate, as it were, the pull of this country rather than others for people exercising free movement in the European Union as a result of the differential in that regard.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

We already know from the former policy adviser to No. 10 that the Government are not in control of some of the policy announcements that are emerging, but this week we heard from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence that they were unable to check 70 A3 pages relating to apparently low-impact cuts. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to explain exactly what was in those documents, and to reveal whether he is actually in charge of his Department and the decisions that it makes?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that the hon. Lady knows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence very well. I do, and I can assure her that he is very much in control of his Department—as, indeed, are my other right hon. Friends.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I join my right hon. Friend in calling for a debate on Europe? In view of the Prime Minister’s important speech tomorrow, may I also encourage him to offer the Prime Minister some advice? Will he advise the Prime Minister to ensure that the timing of a referendum is right, that the question of a referendum is right, and that the politics of a referendum are right?

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I have every confidence that the Prime Minister’s speech will be correct in all the respects that he has identified. Personally, I think that a lot of nonsense is being talked about this matter. The Government are undertaking a review of competences, and we are very clear about the necessity of understanding how we can create a new settlement with the European Union. The Prime Minister is very clear about that, and I entirely share his view that we want to be in a European Union, but a changed European Union. The EU is undergoing changes in the eurozone and in other areas, but this is an opportunity for us to have a better, more flexible and more competitive Europe, and that is what we will seek to achieve.

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

May we have a statement on changes in mobility benefits that will affect both children and adults, given that they were sneaked out without any consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that I will always work with my colleagues to ensure that nothing is “sneaked out” and that Parliament and those who are affected by changes in benefit arrangements are kept informed.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

A further consequence of the collapse of Jessops and HMV is that thousands of customers have been left with worthless gift vouchers. May we have a debate on consumer protection in the gift voucher market, which is worth £4 million a year? Interestingly, figures from the industry show that £250 million-worth of vouchers are never used.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that many Members will have the utmost sympathy for the people who held gift and credit vouchers, some of whom may not have been able to afford to lose them. The law provides for all unsecured creditors to be treated in the same way in the event of an insolvency, and the list of preferential creditors is kept to an absolute minimum. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. He may wish to establish whether there is scope for a debate about the issue on the Adjournment, or through the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Has the Leader of the House seen reports in the press this morning that, for the first time since 1994, Camelot is to increase the price of a lottery ticket, from £1 to £2? Will a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport come to the House and make a statement? I fear that that price increase may have an impact on contributions to good causes.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen those reports. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, after the passage of so many years the initial £1 ticket price could not possibly start rising by small increments, and it was only a question of the point at which it was appropriate for it to be adjusted substantially. Obviously Camelot and, presumably, the Lottery Commission will have to consider the potential impact on money that is raised for good causes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to hear more from my colleagues at the DCMS, either during Question Time or on some other occasion.

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

The local government settlement has just been announced. Before next year’s settlement, may we have a debate to discuss the difference between urban money and rural money? That still presents a problem, and now is the time to discuss it so that we can get it right for next year.

[Mr Lansley]

That is a matter of concern to many Members, including my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government. Ministers agree that the evidence shows that rural areas are comparatively underfunded, and that a correction should be applied so that there is proper recognition of the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. I will not elaborate on the details of those adjustments, although I could do so. Although we will want to have transitional stability in local government, the Government recognise that such costs need to be understood and reflected in the formula.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the performance of the Food Standards Agency? We have just had a poor performance from the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who failed to reassure the House about the FSA’s performance. There are concerns that if horsemeat can be labelled as beef and enter the food chain via supermarket shelves, other sources of meat that have been banned—perhaps because of concerns about BSE—could also enter the food chain. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement from the Department of Health, so that we can be reassured about the performance of the FSA?

[Mr Lansley]

It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman missed asking his question of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. To my knowledge, my DEFRA colleagues have no plans to make a statement about the performance of the Food Standards Agency, but I will of course ask them to respond to the hon. Gentleman about that. I recall from my time as Secretary of State for Health that we exercise ministerial oversight, although the FSA is a non-ministerial department.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Hundreds of my constituents spent Christmas and new year on flood alert, like many others, but now that the immediate danger has passed, they still have to cope with the worry of an uncertain future for their flood insurance. May we please have an urgent oral statement on the progress that the Government are making with the insurance companies on agreeing a statement of principles?

[Mr Lansley]

I share my hon. Friend’s sense of frustration that the negotiations with the Association of British Insurers have not yet reached a successful conclusion. My hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy are actively engaged in those negotiations. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) that it is not necessarily helpful to make statements or offer a running commentary in the midst of such negotiations. Our objective is clear: to do something that will offer the necessary protection to householders and, of course, also be fair and responsible to taxpayers.

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

Bob Dylan named himself after Dylan Thomas. We in Swansea will celebrate the centenary of Dylan Thomas’s birth in 2014, and I have asked Bob Dylan whether he would be prepared to give a centenary concert in Swansea, in order that he could blend his music with Dylan Thomas’s poetry. Sony Music has come back and said that Mr Dylan is thinking very positively about the idea. Would the Leader of the House welcome such a concert, and does he agree that it would add to the reputation of Swansea, the popularity of Bob Dylan and the legacy of Dylan Thomas? Also, would the Leader of the House be interested in coming along, or is his answer “Blowing in the Wind”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I can attend, I will do so, and I will look forward to it. Perhaps others will join me. Many who come from Swansea might contemplate revisiting it. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is from Swansea, as is the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means—and, indeed, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the Prime Minister will be making a statement in the House next week on his speech on Europe? Such a statement would give us all the opportunity to congratulate him on the fantastic speech that the Leader of the House confidently predicts and would also expose how out of touch with public opinion the Opposition are on this issue. Given that the shadow Leader of the House was leading with her chin in demanding such a statement, surely it would be a shame to disappoint her.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is not unusual for Prime Ministers of all parties to make speeches, and they sometimes do so in an international context. In this instance, it is important that the Prime Minister does so, because is it important that we communicate not only to the people of this country, but to the people of Europe our determination to achieve changes in Europe that enable the whole of Europe to be more competitive and more flexible. That is sought not only by this country, but by people in many other countries; this is about enhancing democratic accountability. On issues that require reporting to the House, I will, of course, discuss with my right hon. Friends whether it would be appropriate for a statement to be made and ensure that the House knows of any such statement as early as possible.

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

May we have a debate in Government time that allows Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office to come to the House to explain what work the Department is doing with the Treasury to assist the Northern Ireland Executive in the current serious situation in Northern Ireland, and to address issues such as under-investment in education and housing, and social deprivation? The serious cuts to the block grant in Northern Ireland are having a detrimental effect on people on the ground in Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House give us some assurance on that point?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having discussions today with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and, I believe, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that the discussions will be very helpful. The right hon. Gentleman will note that questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will take place on Wednesday next week, which may afford an opportunity for a response, but I will of course ask the Secretary of State whether there are further ways in which she can respond to the points that he makes.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Last Friday, I was very pleased to visit the NHS Blood and Transplant centre in Colindale to listen to the concerns of management and staff. One concern that was raised with me was the low level of blood donations from ethnic and minority groups. That is a particular problem because that blood is used to treat people with sickle cell anaemia. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to advise on how the Government are trying to encourage people from ethnic minority groups to give blood?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we owe blood donors a huge debt of gratitude. Each unit of blood donated helps us to save the lives or improve the health and the lives of three people; on average, one donation helps three people. That is important and I hope that everybody will recognise it. He raises an important specific point. NHS Blood and Transplant runs regular donor recruitment campaigns, including those to encourage blood donations from black and minority ethnic donors. It works with the media, particularly those of particular relevance to those communities, and with celebrities who have support in those communities. In addition, the Department of Health has established the National Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Transplant Alliance, which brings together organisations to tackle the issue of low donor and transplantation rates in those communities.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Can we not have a debate in Government time on the state of the high street? Now that we understand the shakiness of the Government’s jobs figures, does it not make the Leader of the House’s assertion just now that market forces will prevail look worrying indeed?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady may wish to go, with others, to the Backbench Business Committee to seek such a debate. The employment figures are not shaky; they are absolutely robust. They are telling us that a great deal of private sector job formation is taking place, and that is very important. It stands in direct contrast with the situation in many other countries. We know that we are suffering from the economic effects of the eurozone crisis, but in contrast with a number of countries in the eurozone we have relatively robust employment figures. That is evidence of the Government’s support for the private sector.

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

The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire local medical committee, which represents local GPs, has written to me and other MPs to raise its concerns about people coming to this country to access free health care. It says it wants help on this issue, so may we have an urgent debate on how we can offer that?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand very well the point my hon. Friend is making. The Government have concluded a major review of the rules and procedures on charging visitors for NHS care. It is important that we understand that those who are here, on whatever basis, have access to emergency care, but that there are rules about those who have access to non-emergency care or continuing care beyond primary care. I hope that Health Ministers will be able to make an announcement about the results of that review soon.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not want just a statement on Europe; I want a full debate on Europe in Government time. In the old days, we used to have four debates a year before European Councils and four statements after European Councils so that the Government’s policy could be scrutinised by the House. I know that they were pretty tedious affairs, with single transferable speeches delivered time after time, not least by myself. It would be good if we could have a bell fitted behind the Speaker’s Chair, so that every time the word “Europe” is mentioned all Pavlov’s dogs on the Government Benches could start slobbering—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly about that remark, but I leave Members to make their own assessments on the question of taste.

[Mr Lansley]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker—there is a distinction between what is in order and what is charming, and that was charmless. I also noted that following oral questions earlier, the hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to apologise for being completely wrong in suggesting that I had incorrectly informed the House about what was in the ministerial code, but be that as it may.

I think it is a tremendously positive innovation that a substantial proportion of the House’s time is not in the gift of Government but is available to the Backbench Business Committee. That includes time that was previously allocated to a range of general debates for such purposes. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the need for a debate on Europe, he should get together with other Members and go to the Backbench Business Committee to seek it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Glastonbury road run is an established, popular and safe annual charitable fundraising event, supported with great good will by our local police and other services. Should the council choose to use the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 because the street is “liable to be obstructed”, local charities lose no funds, but if the council elects this year to use the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the organisers will receive a demand for £1,000, which will have to be paid from charitable donations. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter of clarifying the regulations to separate commercial from charitable street events so that the latter are treated with reason and common sense and not as a county council fundraising effort at the charities’ expense?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and will of course raise the issue with my hon. Friends at the Department. I might be wrong, but I think that in such circumstances the local authority has the discretion to waive those fees in certain cases.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite a 400% increase in the demand for food banks since 2010, the Prime Minister has neglected to give clear answers to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about whether he will visit one. May we have a debate on the subject of food banks in this Chamber so that we can bring the facts to the Prime Minister, if he is unwilling to go and see them for himself?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard the Prime Minister’s reply during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, and the hon. Gentleman might recall that during business questions last week I made it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I have visited a food bank. We rightly appreciate the service that is being provided by food banks and the Department for Work and Pensions operates a food bank referral service that works with them, including, in particular, the Trussell Trust. The Government are also working independently, not least through the Healthy Start scheme, which helps about 500,000 very low-income families across the UK to buy milk, fruit and vegetables as part of a healthy balanced diet.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

According to TripAdvisor, the town of Llandudno in my constituency has some of the best guest houses in the world. However, if they want to increase business by offering a complimentary glass of wine to their residents as part of an evening meal, they face the disproportionate cost of acquiring a licence. May we have a debate on the Government’s proposals, as set out in the alcohol strategy, for reducing licensing burdens on these ancillary sellers of alcohol?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I recall correctly, there was very positive coverage of at least one hotel in Llandudno earlier this week—

[Chris Bryant]

Over here.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I was referring specifically to Llandudno in my hon. Friend’s constituency for a second. I sometimes wonder, Mr Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wants to be in charge of the order of the House. It seems rather impertinent, does it not? If I were disorderly, you would call me to book. I do not need the hon. Gentleman for that to happen.

I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) some reassurance. On 28 November the Government launched a consultation on whether to reduce the burdens of licensing on businesses that sell alcohol only as a small part of a wider service. That includes guest houses or bed-and-breakfast accommodation that wish to provide alcohol to guests as part of an evening meal. That consultation can be found on the Home Office website. I encourage him and all interested parties to respond before the closing date of 6 February.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on Government waste by Departments? Figures that I have uncovered show that Government Departments have produced more than 5,500 circulars, consultation documents and publications since May 2010 at a cost of over £1.3 million, including such exciting titles as “Code of Practice on Noise from Ice-Cream Van Chimes”, “Understanding the relationship between taste and value in culture and sport”, and my personal favourite bedtime reading, “Is your dog barking too much?” Is this really a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not have comparative data, but I suspect that under the previous Government there were at least equivalent numbers, but probably much larger numbers of consultations taking place, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. Our responsibility is to make sure not only that we engage the public by consulting fully and adequately, but that we make effective progress with business. That is why we introduced in the latter part of last year a new structure for consultations that means that they will be conducted more expeditiously. We will make more progress more quickly and we will help business, not least as a consequence of that, to get certainty more quickly, and it will help us in the process of reducing the burden of regulation.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Some 1,080 people from Tamworth started apprenticeships last year. May we have a debate in Government time on the new traineeship programme so that we can explore how we can further help young people successfully to compete for jobs and avoid the welfare trap that all too many of them endured under Labour?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I hope we might find an opportunity, by one route or another, for further discussion of the announcements made by the Minister for Schools. Traineeships are a welcome addition to the armoury, so to speak, to ensure that all young people get access to the right skills and that all employers find young people in this country who have appropriate skills and attitudes in order to go into work. My hon. Friend is right. Since the election more than a million people have started apprenticeships. The budget has been increased, and even where apprenticeships are not appropriate, through the youth contract work experience and other support to the young people who most need skills have been growing under this Government.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the uses and abuses of zero-hours contracts, which plague many people in my constituency, particularly the most vulnerable workers?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman specifically wants to raise abuses, I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would be interested to hear from him. I encourage them to respond to him about the nature of those contracts. In some cases—for example, in relation to the NHS—I looked at some of those contracts, and they can play a part in the effective management of a work force and may sometimes be in the interests of workers themselves, as well as their employer. It is all a matter of what the appropriate circumstances are. The hon. Gentleman might like to look for an Adjournment debate or some other opportunity in order to raise these issues.

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

In the light of the recent rioting in east Belfast, some have suggested that some of the youngsters involved feel that they are not included in the decision-making process. At what stage does my right hon. Friend think Parliament should assess progress on the Good Friday agreement, especially as far as community relations are concerned?

[Mr Lansley]

I further remind the House and my hon. Friend of the opportunity to raise such issues with my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary and her colleagues on Wednesday next week.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the 1998 Belfast agreement clearly set out the constitutional position in Northern Ireland and the accountability mechanisms that follow from it. I also say to my hon. Friend that the violence and public disorder in Belfast is completely unjustifiable; I do not think it is justified or excused by reference to any issues of that kind.

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

Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to make a decision about bringing e-petitions fully in-House, so that people are aware that they are petitioning Parliament and not the Government? If he has not yet had a chance to make that decision, will he sit with me and construct a timetable to make sure that it can be done as quickly as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady will know from our discussions and a previous answer in business questions, I am keen for us to make progress on this issue. No decisions have been made, of course; in any case, I hope that such matters would be for the House.

I hope that we can get together and consider how we can take forward what has been a substantial success. There are now a large number of petitions; there have been some 8 million signatures on 40,000 petitions since the e-petitions website was created. We must not prejudice that, but we must try to make it as relevant as we can to the work of the House, and the hon. Lady’s Committee has done a great deal on that. I am very open to further discussions, and we are working on the issue now.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What on earth is going on at the UK Border Agency? It has never had the best reputation in the world for the timeliness of its responses to Members’ inquiries, but in the past two or three months, it seems to have got many degrees worse; many of my constituents in Kettering are awaiting replies to correspondence that is two or three months old. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister to make sure that the UK Border Agency sorts out its correspondence protocols?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that during questions last week and previously I said that the chief inspector acknowledges that the Border Agency still has a great deal of work to do, but that the situation has started to turn around and is now improving. However, I share with my hon. Friend and many other Members a sense that there is still a way to go. There is a huge volume of correspondence, which is why the agency is introducing a national operating model in March, under which correspondence from hon. Members will be managed through a single process. Guidance has been issued to staff, stressing the need for all correspondence to be dealt with promptly. However, I will take up my hon. Friend’s question with the relevant Minister at the Home Office.

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

From the official figures, which are going to be announced next Wednesday, it will no longer be possible for Members to obtain constituency statistics on the number of jobseekers after each job in their constituencies. That is a real issue in my constituency, which has been top for many months—50 jobseekers after every vacancy. There is no legitimate reason for that statistic not to be provided, so may we have a debate on why the Government are choosing to suppress the inconvenient figures that give a real indication and insight into what is happening with local employment around the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about that. I am not familiar with the background to the hon. Lady’s point; the availability of statistics through Government Departments is normally approved through the UK Statistics Authority. I will certainly inquire through the Statistics Authority or the Department to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a proper reply, which I can see, too.

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

The equal marriage Bill will be published next week. Will there be a statement to explain the rush to redefine marriage and will it address the information from the Commons Library that in the past 12 years no Government Bill determined by a free vote has been announced before the Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend seems to have constructed a very particular question about something that may not have occurred because relatively few Government Bills are conducted on a free-vote basis, but I will gladly look back to see what the precedents are. Let me reiterate what I said in last week’s business questions: we have not yet introduced this Bill. My hon. Friend seems to be more knowledgeable than I am. I do not have a timetable for its introduction; I know that we will do it soon but I have not established a date. When the Bill is introduced, we will of course make it very clear how it is properly to be considered.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is

“a terrible time to have the diversion and uncertainty which build-up to a referendum would entail”.

Those are not my words but those of the Business Secretary, reported in the Financial Times as what he is going to say today. Is not the reason the Prime Minister will not come to the House with a statement following his speech the fact that he cannot speak on behalf of the Government he leads because they have no coherent policy on Europe, and that is damaging British business and British interests?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid I simply do not accept a word of that. The Government are very clear about what we are doing. We are conducting a review of competence the purpose of which is to enable this country to engage in a negotiation that would lead to a more competitive and more flexible Europe. I heard the hon. Gentleman’s leader saying on a radio programme this morning that he was in favour of a more flexible European Union and that he believed that there were powers that needed to be brought back to this country. He and his party appear to be willing the end but denying the means.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement on the performance of the NHS bursary unit? One of my constituents, Thomas Petch, is among a large number of students who have failed to receive the bursary to which they are entitled, causing massive inconvenience as they rely on it to fund their everyday living.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his constituent. The changes in the NHS bursary application procedure mean that continuing students need to reapply for their bursary each academic year. A large number of continuing students did not reapply as requested, and this has led to a backlog. I know that the NHS Business Services Authority will take every measure it can to reduce and manage that backlog quickly. May I assure my hon. Friend that his constituent, Mr Petch, will receive his January payment in the next week?

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

On 14 February it is an international day of preventing violence against women, and MPs from all parties have supported the notion that this House should contribute to events and debates on that day. If the Leader of the House were to make an early decision and inform the Backbench Business Committee that 14 February would be a day on which it could allocate time, it might allocate it to such a debate. Will he tell the House now that we can have that debate on 14 February?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid I am not in a position to make that announcement now, but I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s point, not least because I heard her and other Members make it to the Backbench Business Committee at its meeting on Tuesday. I will discuss with my colleagues whether we are able to meet her request and the requests of other Members and liaise with the Committee on that.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

On Sunday 10 March the Sue Ryder Manorlands 10 km race will take place in Keighley—an event that has raised £120,000 over the past four years. May we have a debate not only celebrating the moneys raised but on how such great events bring communities together?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am glad to have the opportunity to share in my hon. Friend’s support for the 10 km run, the money that it raises and the good causes that it will be supporting. It is an illustration of something that Members across the House understand from their communities—that this kind of voluntary action enables people to have a great deal of fun, in this particular instance, to be healthier, and to offer a great deal of support to other people who are in need.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the cost of ministerial travel? Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said earlier, it is clear that the Prime Minister will not be making his speech in Holland as Prime Minister and leader of the coalition Government, as other Ministers have said, but as leader of the Conservative party on what the Conservatives will do in five years’ time in the unlikely event that they will be in government, so should not the Conservative party be paying for this trip?

[Mr Lansley]

I will say two things. First, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Prime Minister will speak tomorrow in the Netherlands as Prime Minister. [Interruption.] The position is very clear—he will speak as Prime Minister and if, during the course of that speech, he refers to the Conservative manifesto or beyond the next election, he will, of course, be referring beyond the scope of the coalition agreement. That is quite usual—there is nothing unusual about it at all.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate about the cost of ministerial travel in this Parliament relative to its cost in the previous Parliament, we would be very happy to have it.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I have raised in previous business questions the potential negative impact on the organ donation system in England of plans by the Welsh Government to change the system in Wales to one based on presumed consent. Yesterday I received a copy of a letter to the Welsh Government from the UK’s foremost expert on the issue, pointing out that the consultation process adopted by the Welsh Government was fundamentally flawed. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early opportunity for MPs to discuss this crucial issue before damage is done and it is too late?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. These issues do not relate solely to Wales; they also relate to England, because they have direct implications for the organ donation system in England. I made that clear to the Welsh Assembly Government when I was Secretary of State for Health and I know that my right hon. Friend the Welsh Secretary will have done so, too. I do not know what opportunities there may be for a debate on the matter in this House or, indeed, in the Welsh Grand Committee, but I will certainly discuss it with my colleagues.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

This week the Legal Services Commission confirmed a £655,000 cut to the Law Centres Network, the Advice Services Alliance and the Royal Courts of Justice’s citizens advice bureaux service. May we have a debate on what that will mean for those organisations, the organisations they support and, most importantly, the people who will no longer be able to use them?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady may have an opportunity to raise that issue at Justice questions on Tuesday 5 February, but if that seems far off and she would like a response on the specific implications, I will gladly talk to my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Justice and secure it for her.

Public Reading Stage

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Written Statements

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

The coalition programme for government undertook to introduce a new “Public Reading Stage” for Bills to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed legislation online.

In pursuance of this aim the Government have conducted two pilot Public Reading Stages on the Cabinet Office website, in respect of the Protection of Freedoms Bill in February/March 2011 and the Small Charitable Donations Bill in August/September 2012. In addition, an online consultation was conducted by the Department of Health on the draft Care and Support Bill, which is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Levels of participation in these consultations varied: for the Protection of Freedoms Bill 6,600 individuals visited the site; and 256 contributors made a total of 568 comments. Many of these were from members of the public rather than from organisations and made a helpful contribution to improving the content of the Bill. Participation on the Small Charitable Donations Bill was more limited: there were 85 comments from 23 organisations, most of which had already contributed to an earlier consultation on the Bill. There were no comments from individuals without a connection to interested organisations. The online consultation on the draft Care and Support Bill attracted a substantial number of responses, with over around 1,000 comments received. The detailed outcome of this consultation has been submitted to the Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill.

The comments from the Protection of Freedoms Bill and the Small Charitable Donations Bill were collated and presented to the Public Bill Committees, alongside an analysis by the Department responsible for the legislation. The comments and reports were referred to during the Committee Stage for each Bill, although they did not directly trigger any amendments.

The Government remain committed to promoting public engagement in Parliament and specifically in the legislative process. The pilot results indicate that approaches to consultation should be carefully tailored to the Bill. We will therefore seek to make our approach to consultation on legislation in line with the consultation principles introduced last year. These seek to ensure a more proportionate and targeted approach, so that the type and scale of engagement is proportional to the potential impacts of the proposal. We will not, at this stage, be introducing a Public Reading Stage as a matter of routine for Bills. Instead, an assessment will be made on a case-by-case basis of the type of public engagement and consultation that best fits the nature and timing of individual Bills, taking into account levels of stakeholder engagement in policy development. This decision does not preclude further consideration with a view to improving public engagement, particularly during Public Bill Committees, by this House.

The Government will draw upon the foil range of existing consultation and engagement mechanisms available, in line with the development of an open policy making model, as outlined in the civil service reform plan. These consultations may be conducted where it has not been possible to publish the legislation in draft, or either as part of or in addition to pre-legislative scrutiny where this would not duplicate work being undertaken by Select Committees.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 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)]

Mr Speaker, may I wish you and the House a happy and peaceful new year?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 15 January—A motion to approve the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013.

Wednesday 16 January—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 January—A general debate on Atos work capability assessments, followed by a general debate on the nuclear deterrent. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 18 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 21 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Wednesday 23 January—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 January—Debate on a motion relating to reducing the voting age, followed by a general debate on the Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for those debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 January—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 24 January will be:

Thursday 24 January—Debate on the first report of the Justice Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.



May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to offer our congratulations to the Members of this House whose public service has been recognised in the new year honours? May I also say how pleased we are by the awarding of Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath to the Clerk of the House? That reflects his fine public service and leadership, and is a tribute to the House service as a whole.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, and may I join him in wishing you, Mr Speaker, all Members of this House and all the staff who work here a happy new year? I would also like to join him in his congratulations to those who were recognised in the new year’s honours list.

The ongoing disturbances in Northern Ireland concern Members from all parts of the House. More than 3,000 people were killed during the troubles. The peace process has brought to Northern Ireland hope and greater security, and has helped to attract much-needed investment. Those whose only aim is to bring down the peace process are exploiting events in Belfast, and we must not let a small minority undermine all that has been achieved since the Good Friday agreement. May I thank the Leader of the House for arranging a statement from the Northern Ireland Secretary following business questions? Will he undertake to ensure that she keeps the House regularly updated?

On Tuesday, the House considered the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, and there is more of it to come. The Government have refused to let the Bill have pre-legislative scrutiny and are intent on forcing it through the House in just one more day. Ministers are running scared of scrutiny because they do not want the facts to get in the way of their nasty little caricatures of those who rely on social security. The facts are that 7 million households affected by this legislation are in work; and the Government’s own impact assessment, published at the last minute on Tuesday, thus preventing Members from scrutinising it before the debate, shows that those who lose the most from these measures will be the poorest 10% of households. So can the Leader of the House explain why there is no pre-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, unlike almost all other bills this Session, and look again at the timetabling of this legislation?

Did the right hon. Gentleman find time this morning to tune into the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, gripping, radio show? No doubt, like all Conservative MPs, he has cleared his diary so as not to miss a broadcast. I am sorry to say that expectations were not high among Government Back Benchers, with the view of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) being:

“Having sat and listened to him at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, he has never answered a question yet so he isn’t likely to break the habit of a lifetime on radio.”

Having listened to the broadcast this morning—it was half an hour of my life that I will never get back—I have to report to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister did not break the habit. However, I have discovered that, strangely, although the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to do a London phone-in, yesterday he refused to appear on a Radio Sheffield show to answer questions about the impact of Government cuts in his own constituency. As the Deputy Prime Minister clearly has time on his hands, could the Leader of the House make a change to future business to accommodate a statement on why the Liberal Democrat leader is hiding from the people of Sheffield?

I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, who has decided to leave the Government because he is fed up of having to deal with the Liberal Democrats. If every Conservative Member who was fed up with the Liberal Democrats abandoned politics, the only Tory left in the Government would be the Prime Minister.

This week, the PR Prime Minister managed to bungle his own Government relaunch. First, two Ministers resigned because they had had enough of the coalition and then we had the shambles of the Government’s self-audit. Having put together a document allegedly auditing their first two and half years, Ministers realised, as the memo put it, that it had “problematic areas” that would lead to “unfavourable copy” as a result of identifying “broken” promises. On Monday at the relaunch, there was no audit. It is a unique interpretation of Government transparency first to decide against publishing a so-called audit, only to have to retrieve it from the waste paper bin after a bungling aide inadvertently revealed its existence to the media. I have had a look at what is actually in the document. There is no mention of the cost of living going up, nurse and police numbers going down and the economy flatlining. Who is the Prime Minister trying to kid? Seventy broken promises is just the start. It does not say Ronseal on this tin; it says whitewash.

There you have it, Mr Speaker, in one week: a botched relaunch, a cover-up and a whitewash. This just proves that with this Government an omnishambles is not just for Christmas.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. Perhaps it should fall to me to express our appreciation of Lord Strathclyde and his fabulous service over many years. He was leader of the Conservatives in the Lords for 14 years and Leader of the House since the election; he has an exemplary record of public service and we in this House, although we do not normally comment on matters in another place, have benefited many times from how he fostered co-operation between the two Houses. We should certainly thank him for that.

The shadow Leader of the House is right that it is the Government’s intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to keep the House fully informed. My right hon. Friend has made statements and she will do so again today. I share with the shadow Leader of the House the view that those engaging in violence in Northern Ireland are attacking the character and nature of Britain and the flag that represents the United Kingdom as a whole. As the Prime Minister rightly said in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, we should be working towards a shared future. There is a tremendous opportunity of which we have seen evidence in Northern Ireland and I hope the statement today will further reiterate this House’s support for those in Northern Ireland who are making that shared future a reality.

The hon. Lady asked about the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. It is a short, simple Bill and what it sets out to achieve is very clear. I do not see any case for pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill with such a character. More to the point, I think the debate the other day was not about scrutiny of the Bill but about differences of view about how to take forward deficit reduction. The Government recognise that it is a necessity, that everybody must play their part and that it was not acceptable for out-of-work benefits to continue to increase at twice the rate of increases for those who were earning. We are supporting those in work, giving them opportunities by reducing taxation. Some 24 million people have seen their tax bill come down as a consequence of the increase in the personal tax allowance and those on the minimum wage have seen their tax bill halved. That is the right way to go—it is about everyone participating in deficit reduction, but those who are most in need should get the greatest support.

I must confess to the shadow Leader of the House that I did not have an opportunity this morning to listen to LBC and the Deputy Prime Minister because I was preparing for questions in this House. However, I regularly attend and listen to the Deputy Prime Minister as he responds to questions in this House, as he did earlier this week. I thought he did so admirably.

Finally, the Government were always going to publish the audit. It is obvious that, compared with the previous Government, this Government have been transparent, clear and accountable both in what we have set out to do under the coalition programme and in what we have achieved, and 90% achievement in just over half of a Parliament is a record that we can be proud of.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Further to the question raised a few minutes ago in Women and Equalities questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), has the Leader of the House considered the importance of holding the Committee stage of the House’s deliberations on changes to the marriage legislation in a Committee of the whole House, bearing in mind that this is a free vote conscience issue?

[Mr Lansley]

It is not the case that issues of conscience in a Bill are always considered in a Committee of the whole House. It is a matter for further discussion on how we take the Bill forward, as we have not yet introduced it. I am sure that, at that time, I will have the opportunity to inform the House about our plans for effective scrutiny of the legislation.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time to have a debate on the impact that benefits, housing and tax changes will have on poverty in the UK, and will he tell us when the Prime Minister will visit a food bank?

[Mr Lansley]

It is interesting that, when it comes to tackling poverty, the hon. Gentleman might have included in his list of things that impact on poverty the extent to which people are in work. The level of poverty in this country is not simply a product of the redistributive changes by Government. It is about getting people into work, and one of the central achievements of this country over that past two and a half years has been—we can see it in the contrast between the United Kingdom and many other European countries—the extent to which the private sector is creating jobs and people are going into work. As has been acknowledged by Labour Members, although they appear not to follow through the logic, work is the best means of escaping poverty.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When he considers business for next week and the coming few weeks, may I urge my right hon. Friend not to rush bringing forward the legislation on same-sex marriage until Government officials and officials in the Church of England and other faith groups have agreed the draft clauses that will give protection to Churches and faith groups that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages, and have agreed that those clauses will do what they say on the tin? Whatever the views of the Church of England and other faith groups might be on same-sex marriage, I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that it is in everyone’s interests that we get the quadruple lock provision properly sorted, and that it will not help the Government’s handling of the measure if there is any confusion about these provisions on Second Reading.

[Mr Lansley]

It is absolutely our intention to ensure that the legislation that comes forward is clear and will carry support. To that end I am grateful not only to my hon. Friend but to representatives of the Church of England for enabling us to have those conversations before the Bill is introduced.

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

May I push the Leader of the House to arrange an early debate on post-natal depression, which affects about 20,000 women a year in this country? It is the most likely cause of death in young women between the ages of 18 and 40 by suicide. It is a very neglected area and the sooner we tackle it and give it higher visibility, the better.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may recall that in the summer of last year, when I was Secretary of State for Health, one of the things that I set out as part of the further measures to improve maternity services was a focus on post-natal depression. I entirely share his view. There is still, as I know from my knowledge of the health service, variable access to specialist services for some of the most severe cases of post-natal depression. I know my colleagues will be looking at that, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter at Health questions next Tuesday, I am sure that would be helpful too.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will it be possible to have a debate next week on collective ministerial responsibility? I tabled a number of questions to the Prime Minister on the subject, which have been ducked. Surely it is important that there should be clarification of what we mean by collective ministerial responsibility, and how and to what extent the Prime Minister feels obliged to enforce the provisions of the ministerial code in relation to collective ministerial responsibility.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not had the opportunity to see the questions to which he refers, although I would be glad to. As far as I am aware, collective ministerial responsibility continues to apply as it always has done, as has the ministerial code.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On the question of keeping the House informed, before Christmas I asked the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about proposals for new prisons in north Wales, but he refused to meet Members of Parliament from north Wales. As we speak, the Department is briefing journalists on new prisons and on a super-prison that might be placed in north Wales. Why are the Government so disrespectful of Members of this House that they are briefing Lobby journalists, rather than Members of Parliament, on the matter, which is of profound concern to my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning—[Interruption.] He says that he wants an oral statement. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid a written ministerial statement that is very full and detailed, and there will, of course, be opportunities in future, for example during Justice questions, for Members to ask questions on that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In the past half hour my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) have all questioned the length of time there will be for discussions on the Bill to equalise marriage, and it seems to me that a Committee of the whole House is the answer. Previously, when the Leader of the House, as shadow Health Secretary, was involved when a conscience issue came before the House, it was considered in a Committee of the whole House, so will he reconsider his position and ensure that the Bill is considered in a Committee of the whole House?

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate that in the past conscience issues, including those that have been the subject of free votes by virtue of that fact, have not necessarily been considered by a Committee of the whole House. There is a job to be done in scrutinising legislation, which can sometimes be best achieved in Committee, and all Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Report, particularly if sufficient time is available. I am not prejudging the question of the equal marriage Bill at all, as it has not been introduced and I have not announced how we propose the business should be taken forward.

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

Next Tuesday we will discuss the important section 30 order, which will allow for a legally binding referendum on Scottish independence to be determined by the Scottish Government. Many of the Leader of the House’s hon. Friends are not particularly well disposed to that idea and might be tempted to vote against the measure. Can he assure me that there will be a three-line Government Whip for attendance to ensure that any rebellion is defeated?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may say so, it is sufficient that I deal with the business of the House, rather than attempting to answer questions relating to the whipping arrangements of each individual party. Suffice it to say, the matter will be brought forward on a Government motion.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Many of my constituents contact me about asylum and visa applications, and when my office investigates with the UK Border Agency we see that the personal data held by the agency are woefully out of date. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain what the Department is doing to ensure that UKBA is not only fit for purpose, but keeps up-to-date personal records?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the UK Border Agency is developing a strategy to identify and resolve data issues, not least in response to a recommendation of the chief inspector of borders and immigration. That should ensure the quality of data and assist the agency in cleansing the data records on the system. If my hon. Friend has specific examples of constituents affected, I am sure that it would be helpful if he raised those with Home Office colleagues. We know that the UK Border Agency had a poor record in the past. The process of turning that around has begun and is progressing, but it will take time.

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

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), any time a Minister is asked about food poverty, their response is that we have seen jobs created in the private sector. I am shocked that the Government are not aware that working people are accessing emergency food aid in this country. When will the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, or a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs actually visit a food bank so that they can give more informed responses to the questions asked by Labour MPs?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady should think that we have not done that, although I can speak only for myself; I have not checked with other Ministers. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I visited a food bank in her constituency in the early part of last year or thereabouts. I completely understand the concern, of course. Access to food banks has been increased, and that is absolutely right. It is right that people should have access to food banks, and there is better access than there used to be in the past. We are setting out to ensure that those who are in the greatest need get the greatest support. However, it is not simply a matter of public sector support; it is about giving people the opportunity to have the dignity and independence that comes with work and earnings.

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

Following the recent announcement by the would-be state nannies in the Labour party that they think that the content of breakfast cereals should be regulated, which will put our Sugar Puffs and our Frosties under threat, may we please have a debate on how we can best protect these great British cereals from this unwarranted attack before anyone starts suggesting that they should be put in plain packages?

[Mr Lansley]

At the weekend I was rather staggered by the effrontery of Labour Members, who, in the course of their 13 years in office, presided over what was, in effect, a doubling of obesity, in then saying that something should be done and, in particular, proposing legislation when in those 13 years they proposed no such legislation themselves. They are clearly amusing themselves with the luxuries of opposition. The fact is that in government we have done more in two and a half years to tackle these issues than the Labour party did in 13 years.

On the question of cereals, the evidence is that a voluntary approach can make more progress more quickly, and that is what the responsibility deal is doing. We have achieved that in relation to salt. In particular, it has enabled us to take full account, in a practical and effective way, of consumer preference and consumer taste. We can shift consumer taste and reduce salt in cereals, and the public will continue to buy them. Even Mr Speaker might buy cereals in the morning and not notice that the salt content has been reduced. Reducing sugar is tough because it impacts on taste, but it does not get us anywhere—[Interruption.] I did not even have Weetabix this morning. Reducing sugar in cereals through legislation does not get us anywhere if the consequence is that people simply start sprinkling sugar on their cereals. If we tackle the problem in a way that works effectively through the responsibility deal, that is a more long-term and sustainable approach.

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

Over the weekend we read a great deal of what was provided to lobby journalists about the Government’s plans for the future of child care, yet when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister relaunched the Government on Monday afternoon we heard no detail about their plans. When will a Minister come to this House to lead a debate or make a statement so that Members can contribute on the issue of the future of child care, which is such an important one for most of my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were very clear on behalf of the coalition Government in setting out some further directions, one of which, rightly, was investment in the future of child care. They made it very clear that over coming weeks further announcements will be made, and of course they will be made, as is proper, first to this House.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House note my sorrow to hear today that Shepton Mallet prison is to close—a prison where most prisoners are working? The most recent report and several previous reports have said that it is a settled and remarkably safe prison for prisoners, staff and visitors. Will he recognise the leadership of Andy Rogers, who is the governor, and his team of very dedicated staff, and note that such decisions on closure affect not only money but jobs in the prison and for those who serve it in an area without many alternatives?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice will read what my hon. Friend has just said in response to this morning’s written ministerial statement and there will be opportunities in the future to discuss these issues. I will take this opportunity, as she has asked, to pay tribute to not only Andy Rogers, but to those working in the Prison Service, who do an often thankless and difficult task very well.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There is an urgent need for prison places in north Wales and today’s statement indicates that it is a possible option for a super-prison, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I am concerned that we do not have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Justice today. May we have an early debate on the provision of prison places, and could the Leader of the House gently suggest to the Justice Secretary that, given that he was at the Dispatch Box yesterday talking about rehabilitation and prisons, he may have had an opportunity to make these announcements then so that we could have questioned him in this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As I said to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), a written ministerial statement setting out what are, frankly, detailed and substantial issues was placed before and announced first to the House. There will be both formal and informal opportunities for Members to get together with Justice Ministers to discuss how to take this forward.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

At this time of year, local authorities are determining their budgets. Harrow council, uniquely in London, is increasing its council tax by 2%, while Hammersmith and Fulham is reducing it for the sixth time in seven years. May we have a debate in Government time about what is happening to Government money in local authorities and expose the wastage in Labour-run authorities?

[Mr Lansley]

If I recall correctly—I will correct myself if I am wrong—we have had a debate on the local government finance settlement. It is important that we in the House vote for resources to support local government, but it is the responsibility of local government to use those resources effectively and to secure value for money. I know that many authorities are achieving that, but others—I look to the Labour party to explain some of them—are not achieving value for money in what are, frankly, tough financial times. I hope that all authorities will achieve best practice in terms of value for money.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Academies Commission has released disturbing evidence of the selection of some pupils at the expense of those from disadvantaged communities. At the same time, we hear reports of academies being run for profit, which the Education Secretary has previously denied. May we have a debate about the future of academies so that both those very important issues can be addressed in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

Following the passage of the Academies Act 2010, the expansion in the number of academies is a great success of which this coalition Government are very proud. The hon. Gentleman says that the Academies Commission has produced evidence. I have not had an opportunity to read it myself, but the press reports that I have seen do not suggest that it was more than limited, anecdotal evidence. I am not sure that there is any substantial body of evidence. On schools and profit distribution, the position is exactly as my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has said: they are not permitted under the legislation to distribute profits.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the integrity of Government consultations? Following representations from my local Sikh community, will the Leader of the House inform Members how Sikhs up and down the land were consulted on proposed legislation for same-sex marriage?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had occasion to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in order to ask that question of the Minister for Women and Equalities earlier. He will know that the consultation on theses issues was substantial and attracted hundreds of thousands of responses. I have no doubt that the Sikh community will have been represented in those responses, but I will gladly ask my right hon. Friend at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to secure a specific reply.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on Government transparency, because the Government are telling us not what we need to know, but what we do not want to know? The Department for Education has answered only one freedom of information request in the past nine months, yet on “Call Clegg” this morning the Deputy Prime Minister felt the need to tell the nation that he owned a green onesie, although he has not yet worn it. Is that the sort of information that the public really need to know? How many Ministers own a onesie? The nation should be told!

[Mr Lansley]

I am beginning to think that the best preparation for business questions would be to listen to LBC radio on a Thursday morning. I clearly missed out. I find it incredible that the Department for Education could have responded to only one freedom of information request. Any Department that I have been in has replied to freedom of information requests by the dozen on a weekly basis.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

At a time of great change in the EU and in Britain’s relationship with it, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to improving scrutiny in this place, for example by improving the use of specialist Select Committees to scrutinise EU legislation, promoting the post of Minister for Europe to a Cabinet position and periodically considering European business in this Chamber, rather than always considering Westminster business?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Scrutiny Committee is conducting an inquiry into European scrutiny, which Her Majesty’s Government have welcomed. She makes an important point about the wider use of the expertise of departmental Select Committees in European scrutiny. I hope that that will be taken forward. We look forward to seeing the report of the European Scrutiny Committee. Questions on European business may be asked of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In addition, European legislation impacts on the policies of many Departments and so can be raised at many Question Times.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As the nations of Britain have waited three centuries for an opportunity to reform the undemocratic anachronism of the choice of Head of State, is it not unseemly to rush the legislation through both Houses in a single day, thereby denying the House the opportunity to give the nations a choice over the next Head of State by referendum, so that they can choose whether they want Charles, William or Citizen A. N. Other?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government have no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman asks. I reiterate that from the business that I have announced, it is clear that we are proposing that the Succession to the Crown Bill should be considered on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the first day. There will therefore be two days of debate in this House, each of which will have proceedings that are amendable.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In April, the Government will cut income tax for 33,340 working people in Pendle and lift 1,570 of the lowest-paid workers out of paying income tax altogether. That is in stark contrast to the previous Government, who abolished the 10p tax rate. May we therefore have a debate on supporting hard-working families and ensuring that they can keep more of the money that they earn?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point admirably. I hope that in our further debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, people will recognise that the changes to personal tax allowances will take a lot of low-income workers out of tax altogether and reduce the tax bill for many millions of people.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I attended Culture, Media and Sport questions this morning in the hope of asking a question about the gambling prevalence survey, but there was so much interest in that matter that it was oversubscribed. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to consider having a debate in Government time on the proliferation of betting shops on the high street in the hope that the concern will ensure that the Government put into action their rhetoric on localism and allow local authorities the right to control the number of betting shops on their high streets.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond. I am aware that it has considered issues relating to the licensing of betting shops in local areas, so it is perhaps best that it replies on that specific matter. Given the comments from across the House, this might be an issue that the hon. Lady and other Members would like to invite the Backbench Business Committee to pursue.

[Lyn Brown]

I am not a Back Bencher.

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps other Members, with the hon. Lady’s support, would like to ask the Backbench Business Committee whether this issue can be brought forward for discussion.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate about attacks on public service workers, particularly teachers, people in the NHS, and police officers? Over Christmas we had the appalling example of a thug who violently assaulted a headmistress, abused and punched her, but simply walked away with a community service order and having to give her £100 in compensation. Surely such crimes should always be dealt with by a prison sentence. May we have a debate to find out what we can do to protect public servants from such attacks and ensure that the perpetrators of such violence are always sent to prison?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand, and my hon. Friend makes an important point very well. I recall, particularly in relation to the health service, how strongly we felt that on many occasions too few attacks had been followed up, and that too few cases had led to appropriate action. The Government were looking at the extent to which such issues were taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing, but I will ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to look at the issue and respond to my hon. Friend.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Sixty per cent. of agricultural land in countries such as Burma and Indonesia that have serious hunger problems have been subjected to land grab. Given that the UK has the presidency of the G8 summit, may we have an urgent debate on how we can use that presidency to stop such practices and return the land to the people who live on it so that they can feed themselves?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am interested in the subject raised by the hon. Lady although I do not think it is one of the issues set as a priority for the upcoming G8 summit. Such summits always afford opportunities, however, not least because of the increasing influence that we are able to exert through the strength of our overseas aid programme and the like. I will therefore talk to my hon. Friends to see whether we can continue to follow up strongly the issues raised by the hon. Lady.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

With new car registrations at a four-year high and record exports for our motor manufacturers, many of our car makers are now looking to repatriate their supply chain, to the benefit of areas such as Coventry and Warwickshire. Skills, however, are an issue, so may we have a debate on that and on how we can encourage our young people into manufacturing industries?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point and he will have welcomed, as I did, what our right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said last year about supporting a supply chain initiative. It is important that we perform strongly in the motor vehicle industry, and that can have considerable multiplier effects. My hon. Friend is right about skills and the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is this morning making clear the Government’s support for initial traineeships—a sort of pre-apprenticeship programme—to ensure that we do not have an economy in which any of our young people go without access to skills and training, and so that we can provide all levels of skills to industry.

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

Well before Christmas I secured a Westminster Hall debate on proposed increases to rail freight charges that threaten more than 700 jobs in my constituency. We were promised an announcement by November but nothing has come. If that means a change of heart, I very much welcome it, but may we have an indication of when an announcement will be made as the issue is causing great concern throughout the coal industry in the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask the Department for Transport on the hon. Lady’s behalf whether it could let us both know the position on that issue from last year. Transport Minsters will be answering questions in the Chamber on 17 January and the hon. Lady might find an opportunity to raise the issue with them.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Drop Inn centre in my constituency is an independently run youth organisation where young people can meet and engage in positive activities. It has assisted and continues to help hundreds of young people in Belper and is an excellent example of the big society in action. Over Christmas, the Drop Inn centre was attacked by arsonists. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can support such big society organisations when they are victims of such crimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that matter. It is important to support voluntary organisations, which often do not have an infrastructure that enables them to respond to such events—they should not be subject to such criminal activity. I will speak to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who leads on support for charitable organisations, to see whether he can point to a particular measure, but generally we have innovative routes by which we can provide not only financial support, but a great deal of practical support to charities seeking to develop their activities.

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

Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to holding a debate on how many promises the coalition has not kept, and in particular a debate on the Chancellor’s promise that he would not balance the books on the backs of the poor? He is borrowing £212 billion more than predicted, so he is certainly not balancing the books, but with 14 times more people in the poorest 10% being affected by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill compared with the richest 10%, he is destroying the living standards of the poorest.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be living in some kind of denial. We inherited the largest deficit among OECD countries and have reduced it by a quarter. We are taking the action necessary following the appalling legacy we inherited, and the way we are going about it is fair. If he looks at the distribution of impacts of income tax changes, he will see that the highest earners see the biggest increase in taxation, and that low earners see reductions in income tax, not least specifically as a consequence of the change in personal tax allowance.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 897 on restoring the 10p income tax rate that was abolished by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)?

[That this House regrets the abolition of the 10 pence rate of income tax in 2008 by the last Labour Government; notes that a starter 10 pence rate of income tax between the personal allowance and 12,000 would instantly move all British workers on the minimum wage about halfway towards earning the Living Wage, in cash terms; concludes that the poorest Brits would benefit the most as a share of income; and therefore urges the Government to restore the 10 pence rate of income tax as soon as economic growth allows.]

May we have a debate on lower tax for lower earners? In that way, we might see how restoring the 10p rate would be a better way to help lower earners rather than recycling benefits through the tax system?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. He knows we have taken action to help the lowest-paid workers, but as I have said a number of times, the increases in the personal income tax allowance will take 2.2 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. Someone working full-time on the minimum wage will see their tax bill cut in half as a result of that measure.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s mid-term review and relaunch this week, and particularly on the full and frank audit of Government achievements? Will the Leader of the House tell us why he supposes the full and frank audit forgot to mention that the Government have trebled tuition fees to £9,000?

[Mr Lansley]

Compared with previous Governments, this Government are open on the nature of our programme and what we have achieved. Our frank and full assessment demonstrates not only transparency but a high level of achievement. On tuition fees, the hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that our policy gives this country’s universities and higher education establishments, which are a success story when compared internationally, increased resources to improve the quality of tuition.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on UK Border Agency delays and bureaucracy? Odstock Medical in my constituency sponsored a PhD student for four years. Despite the change in Government policy, it was unable to secure his position in this country for a further year and he had to be sent back. That is just not good enough, and we need to sort it out.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend no doubt heard my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). The chief inspector of UKBA has said that, since April 2012,

“the Agency has ‘started to tackle the problems’, with improved governance, a stronger performance framework and a more robust approach to tracing and locating individuals.”

Work is going on throughout UKBA, but Ministers are very aware of continuing problems of delay and the difficulty of delivering UKBA activity. All hon. Members experience that and Ministers will want to keep the House fully updated and respond fully. If Members can provide information to Ministers about the nature of the problems their constituents experience, it will help Ministers to ensure that they are delivering the changes in the UKBA that we all want.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the distribution of funding for elite-level sports in the run-up to Rio 2016 in light of the hugely disappointing decision by UK Sport to give zero funding for sports such as basketball, table tennis and volleyball, while giving tens of millions to sports such as rowing, sailing and equestrian? Such decisions cannot just be about past success; they have to be about potential and there is huge potential for a medal in sports such as basketball, as well as it being a sport that is accessible to millions of people.

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, raise these issues with my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I caution the hon. Lady that on the evidence of the Olympic and Paralympic games, UK Sport, and lottery-funded support for sport and elite sport in particular, has had tremendous success by being very clear in its determination to support the greatest potential and to focus resources to make that happen. That does not mean that we have to agree necessarily with every decision made by UK Sport, but one should give it credit for what it has achieved.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have time for a debate on the rather bizarre decision by the Office for National Statistics not to change how the retail prices index is calculated, despite saying that how it is calculated is wrong? A change would help final salary pension schemes that are disadvantaged by legislation put in place by the previous Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not immediately have an opportunity for a debate on this subject, but it will no doubt be discussed at Treasury questions and elsewhere soon. Of course, it was announced only this morning. For my part —I am sure the same will be true of other Ministers—we will look to the ONS to make recommendations and we will now consider them very carefully.

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

In the light of Lord Heseltine’s report, “No Stone Unturned” and his agreement to pilot its proposals in the Humber region, is it possible to have a debate on whether local enterprise partnerships need additional powers and resources to make an impact in areas such as Hull?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have seen that, in the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave strong support to Lord Heseltine’s report, and, in particular, for LEPs. Also, additional financial support for LEPs was announced in autumn last year. I do not have an immediate opportunity for a debate, but perhaps, through the Backbench Business Committee or elsewhere, we will see a proposal for a debate come forward. It would be useful to have a debate at an early point, not least so that the LEPs can see us understanding and recognising what they are achieving, the plans they are bringing forward, and the opportunities we want to help them realise.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

When a high-profile Yorkshire business went into administration in 2011, solicitors’ fees of £15,000 and administrators agents’ fees of £14,786 were paid, yet a small graphics business in my constituency did not receive the £1,000 it was owed. May we have a debate on when local small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our local economies, will be given a fair deal when they are left high and dry by companies going into administration?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, all insolvencies involve a degree of loss, or are very likely to do so. He and other hon. Members have been pursuing prompt payment, which he knows is very important to SMEs. They should not be exposed to financing others because payments are not made on time. He will know that before Christmas we announced a review of insolvency practitioner fees, which will look to establish whether further changes are needed to ensure creditors have confidence that those fees are fair and commensurate with work done. He might also bear it in mind that the insolvency red tape challenge is in progress, which might offer another opportunity to raise this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Some of us who support marriage equality none the less want to ensure that the House does a good, proper and thorough job of scrutinising the legislation when it is presented. It might be difficult for the Government to put together a Committee that is fully representative of Conservative Back Benchers. Would it not be a good idea, therefore, to make sure that the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, or, even better, to give a few legislative days to the Backbench Business Committee, so that it could decide, almost as if it was private Members’ legislation, how to proceed?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to previous questions. We will ensure proper scrutiny of our Bills.

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

Following the tragic death of my constituent, David Young, who was stabbed on new year’s day, may we have an urgent debate on tackling knife crime?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and mentions the tragic case of his constituent. He will be aware of the Prime Minister’s speech recently on crime and justice, when he said that the Government would be looking at toughening up knife sentences and at the use of cautions. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together to review the punishments available for carrying a knife. We strengthened sentences in relation to this under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and the Home Office has committed £18 million to support police agencies and the voluntary sector in tackling knife, gun and gang-related violence and in preventing youth crime.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Mayor of London published his draft police and crime plan, which offered Croydon an extra 117 police officers by 2015. May we have a debate on what others could learn from the Mayor of London about reducing running costs, concentrating resources on the front line and showing that, in a time of austerity, it is possible to protect front-line services?

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important example for others to follow. In Cambridgeshire, I might say, we are also seeing resources being focused on the front line and an increase in police numbers. It is important to achieve that. There are good examples, and I hope that we can find opportunities when they can be set out for others to follow.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

In a week when a hugely welcome new renal dialysis unit opened in Welshpool, on the Welsh side of the England-Wales border, and it was announced that Shrewsbury prison, on the English side, was to close, may I ask my right hon. Friend to programme a general debate on the implications for provision of public services that straddle the border, in the light of the advent of devolution?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. On health services, in particular, I know about the sensitive border issues when it comes to accessing services between the two countries, and that needs to be got right. I will raise that matter with my hon. Friends to see whether there is an opportunity for a discussion. Otherwise, of course, it could be considered by the Welsh Grand Committee. I would just say that it is important that we get the financing right, and I encourage the Welsh Assembly Government to work with the Department of Health to set that financing, so that patients can exercise real choice over where they go, either side of the border, in order to access the best services.

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

Wightlink, the largest ferry company serving the Isle of Wight, has recently axed all overnight services on one route and reduced them on others. Although it does not affect tourism, these are lifeline services for islanders. In 2009, a market study found that the threshold to involve the Competition Commission had been reached, but it was decided not to make a referral. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on what alternative remedies might be available?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend has been in correspondence on this matter, because we have discussed it with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I know that he is also in correspondence with the Department for Transport. Without going into detail, let me say that there is no opportunity to intervene over any lack of competition in relation to these services. From the Department for Transport point of view, neither is there a case for a public service obligation. I will ask both Departments to meet him in order to discuss the service as a whole and what the Government’s relationship to it might be.

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

I will resist the temptation to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a debate on green onesies to show that we are the greenest Government ever. Instead, I would like to ask for a debate on finding a better way to determine issues of conscience, so that such Bills do not have the Government’s fingerprints all over them. If the Government are to propose such Bills, however, they should be introduced in the Queen’s Speech, as has happened for the past 12 years, up until now.

[Mr Lansley]

The Queen’s Speech foreshadows legislation; it always says, among other things:

“Other measures will be laid before you.”

Indeed, in this Session we have introduced a number of Bills, which were desired for a number of reasons, that were not foreshadowed in the Queen’s Speech—the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the HGV Road User Levy Bill and the Bill relating to infrastructure guarantees —and that will continue to be the case in future.

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

As my right hon. Friend may know, climate change week this year is between 4 and 10 March. During the course of Christmas, Devon and Cornwall were badly flooded. May I ask for a debate on climate change during climate change week?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He and other Members might like to discuss this with the Backbench Business Committee. Debates of this character, enabling us to look at such issues, are often more suitable for Back-Bench time rather than Government time, given the way time is now structured in the House; nevertheless, I entirely understand and he quite properly raises the issue with sufficient time for it to be considered.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Staffordshire university has a strong and growing partnership with Gulf college in Oman, as well as universities in Malaysia and China. May we have a debate on how to make the most of the vital partnerships between British universities and universities across the world and perhaps on how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could be involved in that?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not aware of an opportunity in the business immediately ahead of us for a debate of that kind. However, as he made clear, when we consider the ways in which higher and, indeed, further education are responding and marketing to other countries—including, for example, the simple fact, which one would not believe if one read some of the newspapers, that the number of applications to British universities from overseas this year has increased—I think we have an opportunity to continue pushing forward the trade relationships we have. Indeed, Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are on the Front Bench listening to this, and I know they will take this issue forward as well.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the health and well-being of Members of Parliament and would join me in congratulating the House of Commons on our cycle to work scheme. However, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has told me that MPs are not allowed to participate in the scheme. Will he have the relevant discussions and update the House on allowing right hon. and hon. Members to participate in it?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The technical answer is that the scheme is a salary sacrifice scheme, which under the tax rules is available between employers and employees. As Members of Parliament and their staff are not employed by IPSA, it would not be practical for it to run the scheme. IPSA does, however, operate an interest-free bicycle loan scheme and reimburses Members through expenses when they use bicycles to travel, within the rules of the scheme.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will be:

Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by all stages of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure, followed by debate on a motion to take note of a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the gender balance on corporate boards, followed by general debate on corporate tax avoidance. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Wednesday 9 January—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the statutory code of practice for pub companies, followed by a further debate on a subject to be announced.

Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 10 January—General debate on dementia. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the week commencing 14 January will include:

Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 15 January—Motion to approve the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013.

Wednesday 16 January—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 18 January—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 and 17 January will be:

Thursday 10 January—Debate on the third report of the Select Committee on Transport on competition in the local bus market.

Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on International Development on tax in developing countries, followed by debate on the sixth report of the Select Committee on International Development on Afghanistan.

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? On behalf of the whole House, I should like to thank all the staff of the House who have kept the House and ourselves running smoothly: the Doorkeepers, the cleaners, the Clerks, the Officers and all the staff of the House and the House service. We wish a merry and peaceful Christmas to one and all.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the next parliamentary week, even though it is not the next chronological week. I join the Leader of the House in wishing you, Mr Speaker, the staff who work here and have served us so well throughout the year, and all right hon. and hon. Members a happy and enjoyable Christmas.

Unfortunately, food banks had to feed almost 250,000 people this year. Independent figures from the Trussell Trust show that, in my own constituency, 295 children have been fed from food banks. Across the country, thousands of volunteers are helping hard-pressed families who are struggling to put any food on the table, and I pay tribute to their efforts. People are really struggling to make ends meet. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that in 21st century Britain people should not be struggling to feed their children because they have no money? At Christmas, that should be a particular source of shame, but yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister boasted that this showed the big society was working. How out of touch is he? When the coalition was formed, Ministers could barely complete a sentence without mentioning the big society. This year, as the idea has unravelled and been revealed to be little more than a PR gimmick, they have gone pretty quiet on the subject. May we have a debate on the big society, to give Government Members the chance to explain why, when 250,000 people have had to rely on food banks to be able to eat, the Government are giving a huge tax cut to a few thousand millionaires?

I welcome yesterday’s written statement from the Home Secretary on the Hillsborough investigation and the overturning of the unjust inquest verdicts on the 96 who died. I also warmly welcome the Government’s decision that the Hillsborough single will not be subject to VAT. I welcome the court’s decision this week, but it does mean that the families of the victims, who have fought so hard for so many years, will now have to meet expensive legal costs to ensure that they are adequately represented at the new inquests. Given the exceptional circumstances, will the Leader of the House ask the Justice Secretary to look at whether the Government could meet the families’ costs?

On Tuesday, Her Majesty the Queen made an historic visit to No. 10 to attend the Cabinet, to observe, not to participate in proceedings—much like the Deputy Prime Minister, in fact. Does the Leader of the House agree that it was a sign of Her Majesty’s tireless devotion to her duties that she was willing to put herself through such an experience? I have to admit that the photograph of the Cabinet meeting from the Evening Standard worried me. Where was the Leader of the House? I looked very carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman just was not there. What on earth is going on? I thought perhaps he was a closet republican, as he is from Cambridgeshire, but surely that cannot be the case. Then it occurred to me that perhaps the Prime Minister has simply had enough of him. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have now started a campaign to save him from the chop?

To honour Her Majesty’s Cabinet visit, the Government have very generously named a tract of Antarctic wilderness after her and given her 60 place mats—both of which will no doubt be very useful. As it is Christmas, I have been looking for gifts for the Cabinet. Given the miraculous resurrection of the Government Chief Whip’s ministerial career, I thought he might like a copy of the Australian ex-Prime Minister John Howard’s autobiography, “Lazarus Rising”. We would all be grateful if the Chancellor spent his Christmas reading “Macro-economics for Beginners”. Given that every announcement from the Department for Education inevitably finds its way into the media before the Education Secretary has had a chance to make a statement to this House, I think he would benefit from a copy of “How Parliament Works”, which is an excellent book. I thought you, Mr Speaker, might enjoy a manual written for classroom teachers, “Managing Very Challenging Behaviour”. The Leader of the House might benefit from a copy of the railway timetable, and just about all his ministerial colleagues might benefit from a copy of the book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), “How to be a Minister”.

Given that this is the last business statement of the year, and provided that the predictions of the Mayan apocalypse are wrong, I look forward to seeing everyone back in the new year.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, not least for her concern about my whereabouts at the Cabinet meeting. I felt like a reverse Forrest Gump: instead of being always in the picture, I was suddenly out of it. The hon. Lady’s reference to the railway timetable is correct. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) that I have an insufferable knowledge of Letchworth Garden City railway station, where I spent an hour and three quarters. If anyone were to ask me for a debate on recent failings in performance on the east coast main line or by First Capital Connect, I would be very sympathetic to that request.

The hon. Lady will recall that there was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on food banks in Scotland and, indeed, that reference was made to the subject at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions. I think the availability of food banks is an illustration of how we care for each other in our communities. We do not want people to need them, but as discussed in Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier, there are many reasons why people access them—including money problems, debt management, the ability to manage their resources and so forth. As the shadow Leader of the House says, the Trussell Trust has rightly been working across the country to establish better awareness of, and access to, food banks, and we should recognise and support that.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said about the Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement on a further investigation into Hillsborough and about what the Prime Minister said yesterday about VAT. She asked about legal aid. I can tell her and the House that the Government will provide funding for the legal representation of the bereaved Hillsborough families at the fresh inquests.

At Christmas time, we look back at the past year and forward to the next one. After a year in which we have had the diamond jubilee, the Olympics and the Paralympic games, 2012 will be a year to remember for many positive reasons. At this time, however, we also need to think about the people who might be looking on 2012 with less happy memories—people who are bereaved, people who are lonely, people who are in trouble or in pain and, indeed, people who are in poverty. There may not be such great events next year as there were this year, but I hope that in 2013 we will have many smaller positive events that will enable us as a country to live in greater peace and progress.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When do we expect to consider the amendments made in the other place to the Bill on individual electoral registration. Did my right hon. Friend see the circular from the Electoral Commission yesterday, warning that if the Bill does not reach the statute book by the end of January, it will not be possible for the Electoral Commission to guarantee the introduction of individual electoral registration in time for the 2015 general election? Will he assure me and the House that the Bill will be in a fit state to achieve Royal Assent before the end of January?

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed see the Electoral Commission statement to which my hon. Friend refers. It is not for me to refer to business in the other place, but he will be reassured to know that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which has to complete its Committee and remaining stages in the other place, will be considered in mid-January.

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

May I join the Leader and shadow Leader of the House in wishing you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House, especially the Doorkeepers, a very merry Christmas?

[Natascha Engel]

Yes, and the Hansard writers, of course; we must not forget them. I also wish a merry Christmas to all the Back Benchers who have been so supportive of the Backbench Business Committee, by making representations to us to hold what have proved to be some of the most excellent debates held in the House this year. I thank them for their continued support for, and use of, the Backbench Business Committee.

I seek clarification on a minor technical point about e-petitions. The House has now opened Westminster Hall on Monday afternoons for debates about e-petitions with 100,000 or more signatures. Are the slots exclusively for e-petitions generated from the Government website, or do they include any e-petitions that reach 100,000 signatures?

[Mr Lansley]

I can confirm that the House opened Westminster Hall for debates on e-petitions through the Government’s website, on the basis that that gives us a degree of validation in relation to the petitions.

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

Although there was an 8% increase in organ donations last year, 7,500 people are still waiting for an organ transplant. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important topic?

[Mr Lansley]

Although I cannot promise a prompt debate, it is an important subject, and my hon. Friend might, I hope, seek a debate through the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. We have made considerable progress in this area, however. Working on the January 2008 recommendations of the organ donation taskforce, over the last four years there has been a 40% increase in organ donor rates across the United Kingdom, and through the work of NHS Blood and Transplant—an organisation I know well—including its extension of transplant nursing support, I hope we can improve that record still further.

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

May I add my voice to those of the shadow Leader and Leader of the House in wishing a happy Christmas to everyone, including—to the ire of the Prime Minister, no doubt—you, Mr Speaker? I also wish all the staff of these Houses of Parliament a happy Christmas, and let us hope that this coming year we look after them better than we did in the past year, which has been a very stressful time for them.

I am sure the Leader of the House was as shocked as I was to hear Lord Patten’s remarks on the “Today” programme. Following the recent disturbing time for the BBC and its reputation, he described the Public Accounts Committee report as “unfair” and “shabby”. There is something seriously wrong in that. Our constituents have legitimate concerns about the running of the BBC. My own view is that this merits his resignation.

[Mr Lansley]

On the first point, we in this House have a responsibility to look after the House staff, and I think we discharge it properly. Speaking as a recent addition to the membership of the House of Commons Commission, I know that it takes that responsibility immensely seriously, and ensures the staff who look after us are employed, and looked after, on the best and most favourable conditions.

The PAC report into the BBC is a matter for the BBC Trust and the BBC itself, not for me or Ministers directly. Such reports are important, however. As I know as a former head of a Department, when the PAC issues reports and recommendations, they must be responded to and taken very seriously.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas—and, as it is Christmas, thank the Whips for looking after us, because that has not been said yet? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill on the redefinition of marriage will have its Second Reading on 28 January, and that there is no truth in the outrageous suggestion that Whips are slipping Members who do not want to support that measure and calling people back from overseas trips who want to support it?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I cannot confirm the timing of business beyond what I have announced to the House, and it is not my place to comment on the characteristics of any whipping operation. However, we have made it clear, as I believe all parties have, that votes on the equal civil marriage Bill will be free votes.

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

May we have a debate about accurate reporting of the autumn statement? The Conservative party website currently states:

“Anyone in work and receiving benefits will gain more from paying less tax, than what they lose from benefits not increasing in real terms.”

I thought about asking for a debate on declining standards of grammar. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that lone parents and working couples with children will be net losers from the changes in the autumn statement, may we have a debate in order to get the right figures on the record?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will recall that she will have an opportunity to debate this with my colleagues on Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, on the House’s second day back. I point out to her that benefits are intended to be limited—an increase limited to 1%—but this follows five years during which benefits rose by 20%, whereas average earnings rose by 10%. We cannot ignore the simple fact that those on the lowest incomes are among those who will obtain the greatest proportionate benefit from the increase in the personal tax allowance. In April, that will increase to £9,440, which will more than halve the income tax bill of someone working full-time on the minimum wage.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

In 2011, the leadership of Somerset county council announced that Somerset would be the first county to introduce partial closure and charging for the use of recycling facilities. The public expressed their concern that that would lead to increased fly-tipping. The resulting costs, which are £303,615 this year, have to be picked up by the taxpayer through the district councils. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on how Ministers might be empowered to intervene to protect the environment and stop this irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, and I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond to her specifically. Where county councils and district authorities sit down to discuss these things together—I know they do that as they do it with us as Members of Parliament; we do it all together—we have a better basis on which to consider matters, rather than simply shifting costs between tiers of authorities.

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

May I inform the Leader of the House that the insulation companies in my constituency, large and small alike, wrote to the Department of Energy and Climate Change four months ago expressing their concern about the Government’s green deal? I chased that up two months ago to get a response, but to date that Department has not responded to me or to the companies, which have legitimate concerns. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on what he is going to do to sort out his dysfunctional Department?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change about this, but I would hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the green deal. It is going to have a positive impact on up to 8 million homes over the next eight years and create up to 60,000 jobs in the insulation sector over the next three years. The further roll-out of the green deal is going to take place over the months and years ahead, but I hope that early in the new year we will have an opportunity for him and others to see how the green deal will be having a positive impact.

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

When I visited Kyson primary school in Woodbridge for a belated Parliament week question and answer session with year 5 and year 6 students, I was struck by how often the issue of the Belfast riots came up among 10 and 11-year-olds. Given that these events are still continuing, with some disgraceful things occurring, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State to make another statement early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows how our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has come to the House and, quite rightly, made statements. Of course, I have no doubt that in the new year, if need be, she will do so again. We all condemn the lawlessness and thuggery we have seen. It is not in defence of the flag; it is a disgrace to the flag, frankly, and to Britain that this is happening. We want to see it stop. In particular, the threat to our elected representatives and the threat to and attacks on the police are attacks on democracy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working with the Executive to ensure that local solutions, led in Northern Ireland, are leading the approach. We all support that, as we respect the devolution settlement, but I know that as a House we are very concerned and that the Government will take seriously their responsibility to report to us.

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

In view of all the good wishes that have been expressed today—I join others in expressing them—is the Leader of the House aware that one of the best wishes we could have for 2013 would be for a statement early in the year that this wretched Government will resign?

[Mr Lansley]

And a happy Christmas to the hon. Gentleman, too.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I know that my right hon. Friend will agree that we should commend Her Majesty’s Government for everything that has been done this year to make the diamond jubilee anniversary such a magnificent celebration for our whole nation. Will he arrange for the Government to make an early statement in 2013 about preparations for a possible blue sapphire jubilee to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s 65th anniversary in 2017?

[Mr Lansley]

At this precise moment, I will simply join my hon. Friend and the whole House in remarking on what a wonderful diamond jubilee year it has been and on how the example of Her Majesty over 60 years as our sovereign has taken the monarchy to the highest levels of respect, admiration and, indeed, affection that this country has ever seen.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Government initiated a 10-year diabetes strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2003, but there has been a 30% increase in the number of people with diabetes in my constituency and a 20% increase across the whole United Kingdom. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate on this vital issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I know the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in finding opportunities, and there will no doubt be early opportunities for a debate on diabetes care. His point is important, as we need not only to improve the quality of care so that best practice is achieved—the Public Accounts Committee identified in its report the quality of life and the number of lives saved that could be gained by implementing best practice in diabetes care, and although we are doing that we have more to do—but to use measures such as the health check system in the NHS and the preventive health strategies that are now being developed between the NHS and local authorities to reduce the rising prevalence of diabetes.

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

I extend my best wishes to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House. I pay particular thanks to colleagues on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and especially to the staff, who have enabled us to achieve all that we have this year. It looks as though there is very little chance of a white Christmas this year, but there will be flooding in many parts of the country. Many people have already been displaced. Will my right hon. Friend look favourably on my request for an early debate in the new year on flooding and on what more we, local authorities and other agencies can do between floods, as well as on the question of insurance to replace the statement of principles that expires at the end of May?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she has rightly raised an issue that will concern many of us in many constituencies across the country. We feel deeply for those in the west country and elsewhere who are at risk at Christmas of flooding, with all the horrible consequences that flow from that. The House will be aware that the Environment Agency, local authorities, fire and rescue services and others have been forewarned by the Flood Forecasting Centre and stand ready to deal with any emergencies. I know that Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will actively monitor that and will intervene and report to the House whenever necessary.

Flood insurance is a priority. Discussions with the Association of British Insurers are continuing. I cannot comment on the detail of that negotiation, but we are continuing to seek a new approach that is better than the statement of principles—one that genuinely secures affordable flood insurance without placing unsustainable costs on other policyholders or the taxpayer.

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

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating IPSA—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Sarcasm alert—not only on concocting a generous tax avoidance scheme for its acting chief executive, Paula Higson, but on trying to protect our staff from those unwanted and pesky tax bills? That is the excuse it gives for insisting that staff expenses are paid into our accounts, not their own. The last time MPs accepted other people’s money into our bank accounts, it did not end well. Can the Leader of the House sort it out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of the chairman of IPSA so that IPSA can respond to him. I know that the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA takes very seriously the views of Members on the administration of IPSA’s responsibilities, so I am sure we will have occasion to discuss the matter there.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Would the Lord Privy Seal be willing to investigate the behaviour of Cosalt plc, which has big problems with minority shareholding? We need answers to some legitimate questions, and 28 Members of Parliament are concerned about the matter.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise to investigate in detail myself, but I can undertake to be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The issue clearly relates to corporate governance so I will ask him to look into it and respond to my hon. Friend.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May I add my thanks and best wishes to all the staff of the House, including all the staff of the Speaker’s Office?

Some 3,900 people in my constituency claim in-work benefits but will be worse off next year as a result of the autumn statement. May we have an urgent debate next year on the fairness of hitting the people who do the right thing while millionaires get a massive tax cut?

[Mr Lansley]

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the exchange that I had with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). One must take into account the fact that people are in work and are receiving in-work benefits. Those benefits will not necessarily rise by inflation but by 1%. The pay of many people in work is not rising or is rising by a very small amount indeed, but one must also take into account that in recognition of that and because we want those who are in work to feel that work really pays and that the more hours they work, the more benefit they get, this Government are reducing the tax on the lowest paid. The personal tax allowance is going up to £9,440. That will make a significant difference to the tax bill of lower paid workers.

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

From his visits to my constituency, my right hon. Friend will be aware what a wonderful tourism destination Bournemouth is. Tourism is the biggest industry in Bournemouth. May we have a debate or a statement on proposals allowing a change of use of hotels, whereby they would be converted into flats, without the approval of the town hall? I hope my right hon. Friend would agree that such a policy would be devastating for tourism destinations such as Bournemouth.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right about the attractions of Bournemouth. I can remember being in Bournemouth on a number of occasions and having the benefit of the sun on our face and a beautiful bay in front of us to enjoy while we were there. The simple fact of the large number of hotel bedrooms in Bournemouth makes an enormous difference to its attractiveness to conferences, for example. I will talk to my ministerial colleagues and ask them to respond to my hon. Friend about the change of use regulations. Equally, in order to support economic growth, we should create as flexible a structure as we can for people who own property to allow them to develop that property and exploit it.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that over the past few weeks people in Corby and east Northamptonshire have been peeping out of their windows in amazement at festive lights illuminating their roads, because they were plunged into darkness for a long time as a result of a decision by the Tory-controlled county council? That is just one reason why some of his hon. Friends were stumbling around in my constituency having lost their way. This matters so much for the safety and well-being of people across Corby and east Northamptonshire, so may we please have a debate on street lights?

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess that I was not aware of the street light situation in Corby—[Hon. Members: “Why not?”] Street lights are a matter for individual local authorities. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is discovering, if a Member wishes to raise that sort of constituency matter, applying for an Adjournment debate is a good tactic.

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

Youth unemployment in Harrogate and Knaresborough currently stands at 2.6%, having halved in the past year, and we have obviously seen some good progress nationally. Please may we have a debate on the growth of apprenticeships and the role they are playing in cutting youth unemployment?

[Mr Lansley]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Since the general election more than 1 million people have started an apprenticeship and the budget has been increased to £1.5 billion. In addition, I know that he will share my optimism about the development of the Youth Contract, especially the 250,000 extra work experience places or sector-based work academy places, the wage incentive to support 18 to 24-year-olds getting into work and the extra incentives for young apprentices in particular. That is all contributing, I hope. For example, the most recent data show that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds is down 1.3 points this quarter.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that local councils had record levels of reserves that they should use to plug the hole left by his record levels of cuts. May we have a debate on how the Government could make better use of their own reserves and get their own house in order before lecturing others on how to run their affairs?

[Mr Lansley]

I am slightly at a loss to discover what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, especially given the circumstances in which the Labour Government, whom he supported, left this country and the unprecedentedly large debts they left this country. That is the situation we are dealing with. We are not dealing with a Government who came into office and found that they had reserves; we are dealing with a Government who found that they were borrowing £1 in every £4 they were spending.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

During the past few days the Beacon of Hope, a hospice that has premises in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), has gone into voluntary receivership. Although hospices are a devolved issue, we know that charities, including hospices, are under huge pressure right across the UK, and it is especially poignant for hospices. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an opportunity, whether by statement or debate, so that we can discuss the financial arrangements under which hospices operate?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter and share his concern, and that of his constituents, about the financial situation the local hospice is in. As he says, it is a devolved matter, but I will of course talk with my hon. Friend about it. We might not be able to offer an immediate opportunity for debate, but I hope that we can discuss the hospice movement at an early date. From my point of view, I have listened on the issues relating to regulation and know that we do not have to impose additional regulation on the hospice movement. At the same time, in England the Government are supporting the hospice movement by conducting pilot projects for per-patient funding, which would make an enormous difference for hospices, and indeed those with life-limiting illnesses, because they would be able to choose the provider and location of their care and the resources the NHS and social services give to support them would be used directly to support the provider of their choice, including hospices.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the new Governor of the Bank of England’s financial package? We learn from today’s newspapers that on top of his salary of three times that of the Prime Minister’s, he will have to manage on a London accommodation allowance of a mere £250,000 a year. In that debate, would it be possible to ascertain whether, if that is used for a mortgage, any capital gain made on the property would be repayable to the taxpayer?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether we have any immediate opportunity for such a debate. I recall that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came here and made a statement announcing that appointment, it was welcomed right across the House, including by the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers. The truth of the matter, as the Chancellor clearly stated, is that if we want to get the very best person in the world for this job, we have to be prepared to put in place the contract to make that happen.

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

There has been a great deal of speculation in the press that the Government are going to review the inflation target that they set for the Bank of England. Indeed, the Bank of England has failed for some while now to hit that target. May we kindly have a debate or a statement on the criteria that the Treasury will use to work out the inflation target that the Bank of England should be trying to hit?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows, I hope, that we have no plans to change the inflation targeting framework that was set out in the Bank of England Act 1998. As he rightly says, for a significant period that target was not being met, but the framework makes that transparent because it requires the Governor of the Bank of England to write to the Chancellor to explain why it has not happened. Inflation has substantially reduced in the past year or so. Alongside the fiscal credibility of the Government, that gives international markets and businesses confidence in the credibility of our monetary policy too.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Season’s greetings to everyone. In particular, I want to wish British industry a happy new year, but I fear that it might not be so. Britain has a visible trade deficit with the rest of the European Union of, typically, £1 billion a week. Britain’s manufacturing sector is half the size of Germany’s as a proportion of GDP. Britain’s industry has been damaged time and again over many decades by an over-valuation of our currency, and over the past 18 months or so we have seen a substantial weakening of the euro, which is again forcing up the value of sterling, with the result that our trade deficit will be even more difficult to overcome. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on exchange rate policy and its implications for British industry?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is describing a situation that relates to the decline in British manufacturing that occurred dramatically over the life of the previous Labour Government. I entirely absolve him of responsibility for some of that Government’s policies, which he did not necessarily support, although he supported that Government. We are very clear that we must achieve for the future a rebalancing of our economy. That is why British manufacturing has substantially improved its trade in and exports of goods to some of the new and emerging markets such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. It is not a matter of losing markets in Europe; we have to win them as well. In 2011, we exported £300 billion in goods, up 12.5% on the year before, and we need to sustain that progress.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that group B streptococcus is the most common cause of life-threatening infection in newborn babies, and that each year, very sadly, some 100 newborn babies suffer either death or disability as a result. In countries that have routine screening, infection rates are falling, yet in this country infection rates have risen by a quarter in the past 10 years. The UK National Screening Committee has just announced, after a review, that it will not be introducing routine screening. May we have an oral statement from a Health Minister on the Floor of the House so that Members can question this very distressing decision?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I, and, indeed, other Members, have discussed this subject. He is right that it is the responsibility of the National Screening Committee, independently, to offer advice about the relative effectiveness of national screening programmes. I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Department of Health to respond directly to my hon. Friend, but he might like to note that there may be a further opportunity to raise this important issue at Health questions on Tuesday 15 January.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! I neglected to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic right through. We are all deeply indebted to him.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer a statement at this time, but I can say that I share my hon. Friend’s concern that people recognise the intrinsic merits of saving in institutions, not least guaranteed institutions such as banks, building societies and credit unions. On a positive note, those in Wiltshire are, as my hon. Friend has said, clearly a generous community who care for each other. That is a central part of not only the big society, but the kind of society that we all want to live in. I was equally touched by the way in which so many people have responded, in like fashion, after the wickedness of thefts from Great Ormond Street hospital by recognising that they want to contribute to look after others.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues, and wish him and all hon. and right hon. Members a merry Christmas.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for an action-packed next week?

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.

Tuesday 18 December—Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the fund for European aid to the most deprived.

Wednesday 19 December—Second Reading of the Energy Bill.

Thursday 20 December—Launch of a report and announcement of a new inquiry by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, followed by the pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.

Provisional business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will include:

Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 20 March 2013.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 17 January will be:

Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the International Development Committee on tax in developing countries.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I welcome the fact that after months of prevarication the Government have decided to bring forward legislation on equal marriage. Does he join me in hoping that in debates that take place in this House, hon. Members will not resort to outrageous and offensive remarks such as those made by one Member who equated same-sex marriages with polygamy and incest? While welcoming the legislation, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to make it illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to hold same-sex marriages, even if they decide to do that in future. Although we would not want to force any church to conduct a same-sex wedding, the Government’s decision to make it illegal is wrong. Will the Culture Secretary look at that again and make a further statement?

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in coaxing the Culture Secretary to the House following the antics of her special adviser. The Opposition support a statutory underpinning of media regulation to protect the victims of press intrusion and guarantee freedom of the press. The Government seem to want to threaten the press with statutory underpinning to control the news agenda. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given the seriousness of events, the Prime Minister is thinking of giving back responsibility for media regulation to the Business Secretary?

This week, the European Union was awarded the Nobel peace prize. When the prize was announced, the Prime Minister said that he thought it should be presented to schoolchildren from across the EU. This week, he sent the Deputy Prime Minister to collect the award.

We also learned this week that the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted speech on the EU has been put off once again till the new year. The Prime Minister has repeatedly delayed a speech setting out the Government’s European policy no doubt because the Government have as many positions on Europe as there are Ministers. The Education Secretary would vote to leave the EU—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is an interesting Back-Bench response. The Policing Minister warns that Eurosceptics are fantasists. The Deputy Prime Minister thinks that repatriating powers is “a false promise”, but the Prime Minister thinks that it is a good idea.

It is obvious that the Government’s approach to the EU is mired in confusion and hesitation. The Prime Minister will be at the European summit today. Following recent precedent and given the multitude of positions within the Government, will the Leader of the House confirm that, after the summit, the House will be treated to statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than just the one?

Given that we are considering remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill next week, will the Leader of the House ask the part-time Chancellor to make a statement updating us on how the infrastructure measures announced in the Budget are going? The Government have a Growth and Infrastructure Bill, but, out in the real world, there is no growth and not enough infrastructure is being built. This PR Prime Minister’s solution is a rag-bag of measures to cover up the fact that the Government have no plan for growth. Given that, I wonder whether, in the next Queen’s Speech, we can look forward to a united coalition Bill; a big society success Bill; and a “We’re all in this together” Bill.

The Chancellor claimed in the autumn statement that his changes affected those

“living a life on benefits”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 877]—

who were still asleep when their neighbours go out to work. The Prime Minister refused to say so yesterday, so will the Leader of the House confirm that 60% of the people hit by the Chancellor’s real-terms cut in support payments are in work? The politics of divide and rule that the Chancellor practises is predicated on vicious, poisonous, nasty little caricatures. Can we therefore have a debate on whether the mother on maternity pay is a shirker; the father on the minimum wage getting tax credits is a shirker; the cleaner who gets up at 5 am is a shirker; and someone on sick pay recovering from an operation is a shirker? Those are the people who are hit by the Chancellor’s proposed cuts: people who are doing the right thing, and people who are trying to get on in life. At the same time, the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to their millionaire mates. So there we have it: the Government think that millionaires are the strivers while workers on the minimum wage are the shirkers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement, although I was surprised that the announcement yesterday of figures that showed the largest quarterly rise in employment for a decade did not feature in her remarks. None the less, she asked several questions.

I am not aware of any prevarication on the equal marriage Bill. We had probably the largest response to consultation of its kind in the middle of last year. It was perfectly proper for Ministers to take some time to get the response to that exercise absolutely right. The Secretary of State came to the House and explained that there are very good reasons why the Church of England and the Church in Wales have special arrangements. The reasons are absolutely clear in the response to the consultation, and will be clear in the Bill when it is published. Those Churches will have the ability and responsibility, as, for example, the General Synod will have in relation to the Church of England, to determine their attitude.

I am aware of no plans for change in ministerial responsibility for the media. The Deputy Prime Minister attended the Nobel peace prize. My personal view is that the Nobel committee’s decision is welcome, but perhaps ought to have recognised that peace in Europe has been secured through not only the development of the European Union, but NATO. It is a pity both were not recognised.

The Government’s European policy is very clear. The Foreign Secretary is securing a review of competences to consider how we can enter into negotiations with our partners in Europe to ensure that where powers do not need to be exercised at a European level, they are not exercised at a European level. The previous Government talked about subsidiarity, but never delivered. They engaged in a process of constant integration—an escalator of responsibilities and competences to the European Union that never went in the opposite direction. As the Prime Minister rightly said, when we are able to undertake a new settlement of competences and powers in Europe, the British people should have the chance make a judgment.

The Prime Minister will be going to the European summit. In the same way that I wondered why the shadow Leader of the House did not talk about the latest employment figures, I wonder why she did not refer to the welcome news that jobs at Airbus have been protected. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity to reflect on that as he goes to the European summit.

The hon. Lady talked about our proposed welfare reforms. She did not say—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did—that the Labour party is proposing to vote against them. Labour Members voted against the housing benefit cap, and they are proposing to vote against what is a fair proposal. People the length and breadth of the land know that in the past five years average earnings rose by 10% and that these benefits rose by 20%. They will be asking why that happened and why benefits should be rising faster than incomes. Many people, including those in the public sector whose pay is being limited to a 1% increase, will think it absolutely reasonable that benefits, whether payable to people in work or out of work, should likewise be limited to a 1% increase as part of deficit reduction. I heard nothing from the hon. Lady about how the Labour party would deliver deficit reduction. If Labour Members vote against the proposals, people will not understand why they are not giving priority to people who are earning in work.

The hon. Lady talked about tax, and she might like to reflect on this simple fact. What change has there been in average tax rates for people at different levels of income under the Labour Government in 2009-10 and under the coalition Government in 2012-13? It is straightforward: under this Government, the lower one’s income the greater the reduction in the average tax rate; the greater one’s level of income—all the way up to £2 million—the bigger the increase in taxation. It is clear that under this Government more of the burden is being borne by those who have the broadest shoulders. By April 2013, as a consequence of the increase in personal tax allowances under the coalition Government, the tax bill for someone in work and earning the minimum wage will be more than halved. That is the fair way to proceed; that is the way this Government will proceed.

I have to apologise to the shadow Leader of the House, as I have not been able to announce further time for Opposition day debates. I am sorry I could not do that, because I think many Government Members appreciated yesterday’s Opposition day debate. It afforded a helpful opportunity for the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to confirm that he regarded it as irresponsible for the coalition Government to have secured a real-terms increase in NHS spending. He also said that he supported a Labour Government in Wales undertaking for an 8% real-terms cut in NHS spending. Such Opposition day debates are only to the benefit of the coalition Government.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am sure that the entire House will be shocked, angry and dismayed at the continual incursions by the Spanish Government into the waters around the British sovereign territory of Gibraltar. This is an act of aggression. Will the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to make an urgent statement on what Her Majesty’s Government will do to ensure that these illegal incursions into British sovereign waters are stopped forthwith?

[Mr Lansley]

The whole House will be aware of my hon. Friend’s stalwart support for the people of Gibraltar and their relationship with this country. There were two incursions by a Spanish naval vessel into British Gibraltar territorial waters on 10 December. Radio warnings were issued and the vessels departed from those waters, and we have protested to Spain via diplomatic channels. The Royal Navy challenges Guardia Civil and other Spanish state vessels whenever they make unlawful maritime incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters, and we will back that up by making a formal diplomatic protest to the Spanish Government making it clear that such incursions are an unacceptable violation of British sovereignty.

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

The Leader of the House might be aware of the latest statement on tax by Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt. He said he was “very proud” of its tax avoidance scheme. “It’s called capitalism,” he said. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to remind operators such as Google which operate and make profits in this country that they should pay the appropriate taxes?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand capitalism to be about making a profit, not avoiding taxes, and doing so by satisfying customers. The chairman of Google, or any company that wants to satisfy its customers, should take account of customers’ views. The Government are setting out to ensure that people pay the taxes that are due—we are doing that more successfully than the last Labour Government—and we will make further improvements by introducing a general anti-abuse rule next April.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Yesterday, I met an employer from Tamworth who had given a 48-year-old man his first real job in more than 20 years. May we have a debate on what we can do to help businesses, particularly small businesses, play their part in getting the long-term unemployed off benefits and into work?

[Mr Lansley]

Like Members across the House, my hon. Friend will have taken great comfort from the latest figures on employment and employment opportunities, while recognising that long-term unemployment remains high. We are doing everything possible to reduce it, however, with almost 900,000 people engaged in the Work programme and one quarter of them having found jobs. In practice, it sometimes takes one, two or three jobs before people find secure long-term employment, which is the aim of the Work programme, but progress is increasingly being made to ensure that the long-term unemployed get those opportunities.

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

Given the huge cost of road crashes to the NHS and the economy and that nearly 2,000 people die and 20,000 people are seriously injured each year, and on the back of the annual Christmas drink-drive campaign, in light of the overwhelming support in the House for The Times’ cycling campaign, and given yesterday’s disturbing news that the speed cameras on the M25 have not been operational for a whole year, has the Leader of the House been approached by the Department for Transport about having a debate on road safety in Government time? It is an issue that concerns every Member.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I know it concerns Members, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s own work in this respect over the years. I will talk to my colleagues in the Department for Transport and ask them to update the House. At this time of the year, it is tremendously important that we focus on this matter, not just because of the Christmas season, but because of the weather conditions. It is really important. Overall, this country has an extremely good road safety record, but we need to improve none the less.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the merits of leaving the European Union? Even the Euro-fanatic BBC decided that it was worth debating on “Newsnight” last night. Surely we should not leave such important matters to the BBC for debate; surely this is the type of thing that should be debated in this House. Opinion polls consistently show that twice as many people want to leave the EU as want to stay in it. Such a debate will allow people to see how many of their MPs agree with the majority view in their constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that the business of the House should be led by “Newsnight”. We in this House regularly debate European issues. We will debate things such as the Commission work programme shortly and, as I told the House, the Prime Minister will make a statement and respond to questions next week on his return from the European Council. I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I hope that what I said to the shadow Leader of the House gave him and others a great sense of assurance that this Government take seriously the issue of arriving at a new settlement in Europe—one that will give the people of this country an opportunity to make a judgment about the basis on which we have a long-term future in the European Union.

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

On 27 November the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland published a report that showed a serious decline in completion and accuracy of the electoral register, with completion now at only 73% and accuracy at 78%, and 400,000 people from a population of 1.8 million not on the register at the right address. This is very serious. It is a Northern Ireland Office responsibility. May we have an urgent statement about what programme of action the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will implement to address this serious problem?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If I may, I will seek a response to the point he rightly makes from my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The charity Gingerbread has launched a campaign to ensure that single parents are not disadvantaged in the job market. In my Edinburgh West constituency, three in every 10 families with dependent children are headed by a single parent, which is more than 3,000 families. May we have a debate on what action can be taken to improve access to affordable child care and encourage more employers to adopt flexible working practices?

[Mr Lansley]

From our point of view, one of the important things in this context is the overall employment situation, which is very good. We have seen from the latest data that the number of women in work is up 236,000 since the election, while unemployment among women has fallen during the quarter by 21,000. We have to ensure that women in particular are assisted back into work through the Work programme. Expanding access to child care is important. My hon. Friend will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced on behalf of the coalition Government that the number of two-year-olds receiving nursery care is being doubled to cover an extra 130,000 children, with an additional £200 million going into child care support under universal credit as well.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that the likelihood of a child visiting any green space has halved in the last 10 years? As we enter the Christmas season, is it not time that we started promoting access to the countryside for young people, especially when we know that learning outside the classroom is in steep decline because of the Government’s changes to educational provision and the independence of schools to make decisions on such matters? We need action now, and I say this as chairman of the John Clare Trust, a national centre for learning outside the classroom.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that schools must make arrangements for access to sporting facilities, including sport outside and in the open air, which is important. I very much share his view: we know that there are long-term health benefits associated with giving children access to green space, not just in the countryside, but in urban areas and new developments. As Secretary of State for Health, I had conversations directly with, for example, Natural England about precisely these issues, which have also formed part of our work in the coalition on finding ways to deliver our public health objectives right across Government. Using their new public health responsibilities, local authorities will be able to combine that work with their planning responsibilities in a helpful way.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement from the Leader of the House on how he plans to deal with the redefinition of marriage Bill? As I understand it, his plan is for it to have its Second Reading in the new year, right at the end of the Session. The Bill was not in the Queen’s Speech or in any party’s manifesto. It is unique to bring in a Bill in this way. Will he guarantee to the House that he will introduce it in the next Session, after it has been announced in the Queen’s Speech, and that its Committee stage will be held on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I can give my hon. Friend a statement on this point. It is our intention to introduce the equal marriage Bill in the new year. The situation is not remotely unprecedented: we have recently introduced a number of pieces of legislation that were not anticipated in the Queen’s Speech. Our intention is to introduce legislation, based on the response to the consultation, and I am sure that when we do so, he and many other Members will find it helpful to enable the House to express its view on how we can ensure equal access to civil marriage in this country.

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

On Tuesday, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was embarrassed by the fact that, by the end of this year, a quarter of a million people in this country will have accessed emergency food aid. He ignored the question. Yesterday, I had a debate on food poverty in the run-up to Christmas, and the response from the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), was that he did not think that food poverty was a useful concept. Will the Leader of the House encourage his ministerial colleagues to visit a food bank over the Christmas period, and may we have a statement in the new year in which they can report back on what they have learned about why people in this country are struggling to feed themselves and their families?

[Mr Lansley]

I was here when the Chancellor was asked that question, and I do not think he ignored it at all. The hon. Lady must recognise that the most important thing we can achieve is to enable people to be in work. It is staggering to see the way in which the Opposition have completely ignored this week’s data showing one of the fastest quarterly increases in employment that we have seen for a decade. Despite the economic inheritance from the last Government, and despite the deficit, we are stimulating job creation. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that something like two jobs are being created in the private sector for every one lost in the public sector, which is a consequence of deficit reduction. The latest data show a reduction of 24,000 jobs in the public sector and an increase of 65,000 in the private sector. Since the election, the figure is netting out at something like 1.1 million jobs. The answer to poverty, whether it is child poverty or food poverty, is work. Work is the best route out of poverty.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I very much welcome some of the measures that the Government have taken to tackle antisocial behaviour, but may we have a debate on chronic antisocial behaviour by neighbours? The Leigh, Sanger and Ferreira families in Black Dog walk in my constituency have been the victims of the Clarke family for over a quarter of a century. A debate on how we might further address such unacceptable situations would be much appreciated.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to his constituents, that will have been recognised by Members across the House. Today, the Government have published the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The reforms in the Bill will put victims first, and they include a new community trigger that will empower victims and communities to demand that local agencies deal with persistent problems where they have previously failed to do so. I think that my hon. Friend will find that particularly relevant to the circumstances he has described. The measures will also speed up the eviction of antisocial tenants by introducing a faster route to eviction for the most serious criminal or antisocial behaviour. The Home Affairs Committee is looking forward to undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and producing a final report with recommendations in February.

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

We know that the Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that the UK economy will contract by 0.1% in this quarter, and that it believes that the economy will contract this year as a whole. May we have a debate on business lending? It was confirmed to me on 11 December by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), that business lending had contracted by 2.8% this year, and high streets such as the one in Guisborough in my constituency are really suffering due to a lack of funding to business.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are literally leaving no stone unturned, as Michael Heseltine might have put it, to ensure that we support lending to businesses—especially to small and medium-sized businesses. That is why the funding for lending scheme is so important; it is clearly getting going and significant amounts are starting to be lent as a consequence. It is also why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have together been pushing for the business bank, which will be able to leverage additional specific lending to small and medium-sized businesses—not only through that bank, but through many of the new challenger banks that are giving support in that market.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the latest OBR report. He might recognise that the OBR has published updated figures on the scale of the recession under the last Labour Government, showing a total loss of gross domestic product of 6.3%. We are having to live with the economic consequences of Labour, and I think the Labour party should start from an understanding of the recession and the depth of debt it left this country.

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

May I pick up on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), particularly the last part of it, which the Leader of the House did not answer? As it is an issue of conscience, all parties will be entitled to a free vote on the management and scrutiny of the redefinition of marriage Bill. May we therefore follow the precedent set by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in a previous Parliament of holding the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, allowing all Members to exercise their conscience?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if I neglected to answer that point—perhaps I did not hear everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) had to say. That is always a mistake—I should listen carefully to him, and I attempt to do so. I cannot promise what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asks for. We will introduce and hold Second Reading of the Bill in the new year. When he looks at the Bill, I think he will realise that the Second Reading debate may well crystallise the issues. I share the view expressed by the shadow Leader of the House: I completely respect the views of those who oppose equal civil marriage. I recall listening to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who I thought expressed the Church of England’s view on the matter very well. I completely understand it, but I do not think that that view should necessarily be translated into the view of the state on what constitutes equality in civil marriage. That, I think, is the difference of view. Expressing that difference of view on Second Reading is the responsibility of this House as a whole. I welcome the fact that all parties appear to be giving Members the opportunity to vote freely on the issue.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I shall endeavour to be brief, Mr Speaker. Perhaps there is a law of the expansion of questions to fill the time available, yet perhaps that time available— [Hon. Members: “You are doing it now!”] I am doing it now.

This is a matter for clinical practice, and it is important that clinical guidelines apply in the NHS. It is the NHS’s responsibility to draw up the guidelines. I listened with interest to points made this morning that resulted from research, and I am sure that they will be reflected in the guidelines in due course.

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

Next week, Yorkshire is likely to win its bid to host the 2014 Tour de France. UK Sport backed Scotland for this event. May we have a debate to ensure UK Sport now offers the same multi-million pound cash deal to Yorkshire as it did to Scotland, so that there is no tartan bias in the arrangements?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very interested in that news, and I shall congratulate Yorkshire if it is successful. The matter is obviously the responsibility of UK Sport, but I will draw it to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and ensure that those at UK Sport are aware of my hon. Friend’s comments.

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

Is the Leader of the House comfortable with Ministers’ refusing to meet other Members of Parliament? On 17 October, I presented a ten-minute rule Bill on alcohol, relationship and drugs education that received cross-party support and the backing of 14 national charities. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), asking whether I could bring the Bill’s sponsors and representatives of the charities to discuss the matter with her, but I was refused a meeting.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know, as I hope the whole House does, that I consider one of my responsibilities to be ensuring that the interests of the House and its Members are understood and acted on in Departments and by my colleagues. I will therefore take the matter up.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I support what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and gently remind the House that an illegal incursion into British Gibraltarian sovereign waters is technically an act of war? What is happening at the moment is wrong, and we should do something about it. May we have a statement by the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs, as a matter of urgency, so that they can respond robustly to this aggravation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating the point about the incursion. I hope that I was clear and unequivocal earlier about the nature of the Government’s response.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As one who is very sympathetic to the idea of equal marriage, may I ask for a debate on the way in which future legislation will apply to Wales? I ask because the Church in Wales is disestablished, and has been since 1920, and because the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has expressed reservations about the Government’s approach.

[Mr Lansley]

I am indeed aware of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, but it does not mean that specific legal arrangements relating to that Church will not prove necessary, given its responsibility to provide opportunities for marriage for the whole population of Wales. I am not an expert on the subject, but I am sure that it will form part of the debate on the equal marriage Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance then not only to make his points, but to be given good answers.

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

In January this year, the House voted unanimously for a review of the Government’s much-criticised decision to retain self-regulation for the big pub companies. Last week we learned from the British Beer and Pub Association that self-regulation has no role in tenant profitability, which was the big problem identified by the Select Committee. Now that we know that self-regulation cannot work, may we have that review, and may we have a statement from a Minister?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I do not know the answer to his question. I will ask my colleagues whether they can respond to it, as I too will be interested in the reply.

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

When will the Leader of the House schedule a full debate on the impact that the Government’s plans for real-terms cuts in tax credits will have on the living standards of up to 5.8 million people from next April? Such a debate would enable us to discuss why, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 63% of the affected people in my constituency and 82% of those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be strivers in low and middle-income jobs.

[Mr Lansley]

Last Tuesday, if I recall correctly, the House had a full opportunity to debate the autumn statement and the economy generally, and full and clear answers were given. I think that when the hon. Gentleman takes into account not only the working-age benefits that are available to those who are in work, but the positive impact of tax changes on those people, he will recognise that the coalition Government are focusing on ensuring that work does indeed pay.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The Welsh Government’s proposals to pass a new law changing the organ donation rules from an opt-in system to an opt-out system are far advanced. That is, of course, a matter for the Welsh Government, but there is no evidence that the move will result in an increase in the number of donated organs. There may well be negative impacts on the donation system in England, however. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement before the Welsh law is passed on its possible impacts across the UK as a whole?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to my hon. Friend on that issue. I responded to the Welsh Government on behalf of the Government, and I made some points about the relationship between the organ donor register and its administration in England and in Wales. That is important, and should be taken into account.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the merits of docking people’s pay if they do not carry out their duties? The Secretary of State for Education says he wants to do that to teachers, yet he and his Ministers have the worst record in Government on failing to answer parliamentary questions and, as we have heard today, refusing to meet Members who have genuine reasons to want to meet Ministers. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Secretary of State should take his own medicine by docking his own pay until he gets that right?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen the letter my right hon. Friend sent to schools, in which he made the absolutely fair point that, on the basis of ballots in which there was a very poor turnout, there is a minority of teachers who are prejudicing the interests of children in schools. My right hon. Friend was not saying that he was going to do anything; instead he was making it very clear that the Government support schools, as the employers of teachers, in making the right decisions on behalf of their children.

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

Everyone knows somebody who has been affected by dementia. On Monday I attended a seminar at Stoke Damerel community college organised by Ian Sherriff, a well-known campaigner based at Plymouth university, which was also led by the well-known broadcaster Angela Rippon. May I add my support to calls for a debate in Backbench Business Committee time on dementia, as it is an important issue? Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what progress has been made with the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge?

[Mr Lansley]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is present and will have heard my hon. Friend’s request for a debate on dementia. I was with the Prime Minister when we launched the dementia challenge in the early part of the year. I will not give my hon. Friend a complete and comprehensive list of the many things that are happening, but the dementia-friendly community part of the challenge is resulting in the launch of a new dementia friends scheme, the delivery of awareness sessions on dementia to 1 million people, and some £54 million being made available to support dementia diagnosis in hospitals, because we know that there is under-diagnosis in this country, and we need to improve the situation. A substantial capital fund is also being created to support dementia-friendly health and care environments.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Instead of sacking HMRC staff, may we have a debate on how they could collect tax from wealthy individuals? Instead of cutting taxes to millionaires, the Government should try to collect their taxes.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman neglects the simple fact that our measures to ensure that people pay the proper sums in tax to the Government are raising about £7 billion a year more than similar measures under the last Labour Government. We are doing more, and we will do still more. The hon. Gentleman does not take any account of the fact that my ministerial colleagues at the Treasury have announced that front-line staff will be working precisely on tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the implementation of additional measures and a general anti-abuse rule in April will enable us to do still more.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest in cancer and that I am generally supportive of the idea that doctors and clinicians should make decisions about local commissioning. Last night, however, I finished reading “Securing equity and excellence in commissioning specialised services”, a document produced by the NHS Commissioning Board. It is 227 pages long, and I was stunned to learn that there are 130 specialised commissioning services groups and a series of subgroups, as well as the NHS Commissioning Board, four regional directorates and 10 sub-regional directors inside 27 local area action teams. I am unclear how introducing more bureaucracy and new layers of staff—who are appointed, not elected—will lead to an increase in the provision of local services.

[Mr Speaker]

We are ever so grateful to the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who might wish further to pursue this matter by the well-known device of an Adjournment debate.

[Mr Lansley]

The commissioning of specialised services through the NHS Commissioning Board is a direct replacement for the previous regional or national specialised commissioning. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the level of bureaucracy she describes is significantly less than there used to be under regional and national specialised commissioning. The total activity in the NHS Commissioning Board, compared with the responsibilities it has taken on, is reducing by about 30% or 40%; I am talking about the number of people employed and engaged in that kind of central commissioning activity. People with some of these specialised conditions want specialised commissioning on a national basis, because it gives them much greater assurance about the consistent application of the clinical guidelines.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

This week, a young guardsman, Guardsman Bhullar of F Company, Scots Guards, took up his post guarding our monarch at Buckingham palace. Unlike his fellow guardsmen, he was wearing a turban rather than a bearskin—it has been a long time coming. He has a bright future and is a capable young man. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on improving recruitment of ethnic minorities into our Army, because our armed forces are at their best when they look like the society they protect?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The House recently had an opportunity in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee to discuss defence personnel. I do not recall whether the issue he raises came up, but I share his view, as I am sure the armed forces do. In particular, I think that they, like many across the House, will have been rather cheered by the new guardsman, recognising the tremendous and courageous contribution that Sikhs have historically made to the British Army over many years.

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

I want briefly to thank the Leader of the House for being flexible in allowing the Backbench Business Committee to allocate debates at the end of the day. I also ask him to help me to encourage Members to come to the Backbench Business Committee with proposals for not only very big debates on subjects such as autism, but debates that are more flexible and can be held quickly, such as yesterday’s debate on women bishops, and debates that are flexible on time and flexible on whether there is a vote at the end.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the House will be aware of the evidence from the Backbench Business Committee of the progress it is making in being able to accommodate requests. I have seen, by sitting with the Committee at its sessions, just how an increasing number of Members from right across the House appreciate that and take advantage of it. The hon. Lady asks for flexible debates if the business of the House concludes early. We took that approach for the autism debate, which I thought was very successful and delivered precisely what the Committee was seeking.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Government are about to announce a key decision on whether one-year and five-year cancer survival rates will be included in the 2013-14 commissioning outcomes framework. Given the importance of this decision to cancer patients and the cancer community at large, may we have an appropriate statement in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this on many occasions. He will understand that one thing we have set out to do is hold the NHS to account, through the Commissioning Board, for the outcomes it achieves in the national outcomes—the NHS outcomes framework. The way in which the board then holds clinical commissioning groups to account in greater detail—I am pleased to say that the first 34 have now been authorised by the board—is a matter for it to decide under the NHS commissioning outcomes framework. It is for the board to make these announcements, rather than for Ministers to do so.

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for moving the motion and for how he explained the process of appointment, the merits of the candidates and their future responsibilities. It was very helpful and clear.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee in shaping the proposals that have brought us to this point. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for their contributions. I say to my hon. Friend that, although some might think this will modify the behaviour of the press, I am not expecting it to achieve that. We can be confident, however, that it will assist us not only in setting and enforcing high standards of conduct in this place, but in ensuring that we are seen to do so. It is the public we want to focus on. We want them to understand and appreciate that.

What we are doing today is further to the House agreeing on 2 December 2010 to the principle of lay members on the Committee on Standards. The House invited the Procedure Committee to make proposals to implement that. Those proposals, with minor modifications, were given effect by the House on 12 March 2012, when Standing Order Nos. 148A and 149A were made and Standing Order No. 149 was amended. I am sure that Members do not need to be reminded of the detailed background; suffice it to say that having lay members on the Committee on Standards was a recommendation in the 2009 report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It therefore represents part of a wider package of rebuilding trust following the expenses scandal. In practice as well as in perception, robust independent scrutiny and regulation have come to the determination and administration of our expenses, pay and pensions. They will now also play an important part in our internal disciplinary processes.

With that in mind, the Government, and I am sure the whole House, support the appointment of lay members to the Committee on Standards. Their participation in our standards processes will provide a most valuable addition to the work of the Committee on Standards and, if necessary, a challenge to its work—I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley for illustrating how that might be possible in practice. That will increase public confidence in the work of the Committee.

As someone who participated in the selection process, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described, may I also say that I can recommend the candidates to the House? I was impressed by the evident time and trouble they had taken in preparing for and participating in the selection process. I believe the House will find in them the right balance of experience, judgment and integrity. The candidates were also clear about their need and wish to undertake necessary training and induction in preparation for their role. I know that the Committee and House service will want to ensure that that is available.

Members will also be aware from the Order Paper that there are two motions to be considered later today that seek to implement the previous decisions of the House—of 2 December 2011 and 12 March 2012—to split the Standards and Privileges Committee into two Committees: one on standards, the other on privileges. Should the House agree to the motion before us now and the further two motions on the Order Paper, then according to the Standing Order changes agreed on 12 March this year and with effect from 7 January 2013, as described by the shadow Leader of the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee will divide and lay members will play the role on the Committee on Standards that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out earlier.

On behalf of the Government and as Leader of the House, I support the motion, and I look forward to welcoming the lay members to their new and important role in the new year.

Question put and agreed to.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning we had the First Reading of the Succession to the Crown Bill. It is my understanding that this is a constitutional Bill, so I was wondering whether there was any way of asking the Leader of the House to confirm whether it would be taken on the Floor of the House.