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.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 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 10 December—Motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill.

Tuesday 11 December—General debate on the economy.

Wednesday 12 December—Opposition Day [12th allotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by general debate on the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 13 December—Motions relating to standards and privileges, followed by general debate on live animal exports and animal welfare. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 December will be:

Thursday 20 December—Debate on the interdepartmental ministerial group report on human trafficking.

[Ms Eagle]

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

I have previously asked the predecessor of the Leader of the House about equal marriage legislation. Every piece of equality legislation since the decriminalisation of homosexuality was passed by the previous Labour Government. We fully support plans to introduce equal marriage. Couples planning their future need certainty from the Government, not prevarication. The Government’s legislative timetable is not exactly packed, so will the Leader of the House commit to bringing forward legislation in this Session?

We are grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging a debate on the Leveson report earlier this week. I congratulate Lord Justice Leveson on his report and his careful consideration of the evidence. The status quo is unacceptable; the victims of press intrusion deserve better. We welcome cross-party talks on how to implement the report, but there are clear divisions on the report between us and Conservative Front Benchers. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore commit to making available Government time for a vote on the proposals and, if there is a majority, time for the legislation that would follow?

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming to the House the new Labour Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Croydon North (Steve Reed)? I have been looking at by-election history. In 2008, there was a by-election in Henley in which the then governing party came fifth. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that showed that Labour was “finished”. In the Rotherham by-election, the Liberal Democrats managed to scrape into eighth place, behind Labour, the UK Independence party, the British National party, Respect, the Conservatives, the English Democrats and a local vicar. Can the Leader of the House say whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement on the outlook for his party after this debacle?

Yesterday we found out the full scale of the Government’s economic failure. The Prime Minister promised to balance the books by 2015, but he has broken that promise. The Chancellor promised to cut borrowing, but borrowing and debt figures have been revised up this year and for future years. The Government promised to grow the economy, but yesterday the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the economy would contract this year. The part-time Chancellor might try 4G Del Boy economics to hide his failure, but he cannot hide the truth. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this is the worst economic outlook since the 1920s. This is the consequence of a Government who got all the big decisions wrong. In October 2010, the Chancellor said:

“What investor is going to come to the UK when they fear a downgrade of our credit rating?”

He then claimed that the rating was safe in his hands, but this morning it is clear that the Chancellor’s economic failure has put his prized triple A rating at risk.

The measures announced in yesterday’s autumn statement will, according to the Treasury’s own figures, hit the poorest half of the country hardest. Those in work on modest earnings are paying the bill for this Government’s mismanagement of the economy, and at the same time the Government are giving a £100,000-a-year tax cut to the richest 8,000 people. How is that fair? We had an explanation yesterday in a Liberal Democrat briefing :

“The only tax cuts the Tories support are ones for the very rich”.

Helpful clarification was then offered by the Business Secretary, who said:

“We have a different view to the Conservatives…on fairness”.

Does the Leader of the House not think that a debate on fairness would give the Liberal Democrats the opportunity to remind themselves that they actually voted to give a tax cut to the richest 1%, and will he allow time for such a debate?

After yesterday’s autumn statement, we know that the Government are borrowing £212 billion more than expected, that the benefit bill is £13 billion higher, that growth forecasts have been cut this year, next year and for every year until 2016, and that the Government have failed the only economic tests they set themselves. This is the price of economic failure. For all the Chancellor’s sleight of hand yesterday, the Treasury’s own figures reveal that the economy has not grown, that borrowing is up, that growth will be less, that spending will be cut and that unemployment will go up. This is the record of a Government who have made the wrong choices. This is the consequence of an economic strategy that is not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

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

There is no prevarication whatsoever on equal marriage. We have been very clear that, following the consultation, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities will respond before Christmas, and indeed she will. I look forward to that and I hope that it will demonstrate our further determination to secure equal marriage, which was not achieved under a Labour Government, but can now be achieved under a coalition Government.

I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about a debate on Leveson. It reminded me that when we discussed House business this time last week, the Leveson report had not been published. Doesn’t time fly when you’re having fun? I say to the hon. Lady that it is a bit premature to discuss the nature of future business of the House in relation to the Leveson report while my right hon. Friends, and indeed those on her own Front Bench, are engaged in discussions among themselves and with the newspaper editors, who have taken away from the Prime Minister and others the message that they must come up with plans that meet the Leveson principles and do so rapidly. We will hear more about that, I hope, later today.

I will indeed take this opportunity to welcome the new Members of the House. The hon. Lady kindly wrapped that question with a reference to the 2008 Henley by-election. Ever since that day, the House has been graced with the presence of my parliamentary private secretary. If the new Members do half as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has done, they will do very well indeed.

Most of what the hon. Lady had to say was about the autumn statement. She used it as an opportunity to try to restore the credibility of the Opposition’s Front Benchers after the lamentable failure of the shadow Chancellor yesterday, who had no idea what he wanted to say and was utterly confused. The truth of the matter is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able not only to maintain this country’s credibility in his determination to reduce the deficit—the deficit is coming down—but to say that inflation has come down, that we are making considerable strides forward in many of the emerging markets and that employment has been rising. There are 1.2 million more jobs in the private sector, and the Office for Budget Responsibility says that at least two new jobs will be created in the private sector for every job that is lost in the public sector as a consequence of the inescapable necessity to control borrowing.

I heard nothing from the hon. Lady about how the Labour party would control borrowing. Where would the Labour party’s deficit reduction plan come from? We hear nothing about that. She talked about fairness and taxes for the richest, but she will have noticed that the Chancellor’s autumn statement set out an intention to increase taxation of the richest. It is clear from the distributional consequences of the autumn statement that those with the broadest shoulders are bearing the biggest burdens. We have not heard from the Opposition whether they would go back to the 50p rate if they were ever back in government. We just do not know.

Under the coalition Government, the personal tax allowance will have gone from £6,475 to £9,440 under the plans announced by the Chancellor—within touching distance of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Some 24 million taxpayers and their families will benefit from that and we are taking 2 million people out of tax altogether. Somebody working full time on a minimum wage will have seen their tax bill more than halve. When the hon. Lady talks about fairness, I think that we should talk about that kind of fairness too.

I did not hear from the hon. Lady, on a practical question about the business of the House, whether the Opposition will vote for or against the welfare uprating Bill when it comes before the House. [Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position that we will have to wait and see. It is just like yesterday. The shadow Chancellor and the hon. Lady do not have a clue what they would do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Can the Chancellor come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House what consideration he has given to the impact of the rise in the pensionable age on those in receipt of permanent health insurance payments under schemes that were designed to end at the current retirement age?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are having a debate on the economy next Tuesday, which will present an opportunity to discuss many of the issues that have arisen from the autumn statement. I will certainly draw the attention of Treasury Ministers to this matter. It is worth noting that, not least because of the support that we are giving to the national health service, the number of people in this country who have private health insurance has gone down.

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

The Leader of the House may be aware that the London fire authority is looking at a plan to shut 17 fire stations across the capital, which includes cutting 50% of the fire cover in my constituency, which has some of the poorest wards in London. This is creating alarm across all parts of the House. Is it possible for the relevant Minister to give a statement or to have a short debate?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not remembering the precise date, but an Adjournment debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on fire stations and the fire and rescue authority. These are matters for the fire and rescue authority and the Mayor of London, but I do recall that Ministers responded to the debate. If there is anything to be added since it took place, I will ask Ministers to correspond with him.

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

Last week, Plymouth and Cornwall were cut off by rail due to flooding and landslips. I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Chancellor that he will spend £5 billion on investing in our infrastructure and that part of the A30 in Cornwall will be dualled. Please can we have a wider debate on infrastructure in the south-west to discuss the railway line from Exeter to Plymouth, improvements to the A38 and the potential dualling of the A303?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he would consider seeking an Adjournment debate on economic performance and infrastructure improvements in the south-west to see how they are linked. Having lived in Exeter for four years, I have some sympathy with him. I remember how the A303 was back in those days. It is better now than it was then, but there are still a few bottlenecks.

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

The Leader of the House will know that in the fog of gloom and misery that was yesterday’s autumn statement, some of us were expecting the Chancellor to make just a little announcement about how he was going to go after the big multinational companies that do not pay any tax—Google, coffee giants and water companies—and get some money for all those years that they have paid nothing. Why was there no mention of going after these people who take the profits but do not put anything back into their communities?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Chancellor yesterday. As my right hon. Friend set out, not only do the Government intend to introduce a general anti-abuse rule for the first time, but as a consequence of measures already being taken to tackle evasion and avoidance, we will bring in something like £7 billion more a year in tax revenue than under the previous Government.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House make time for a short debate to question the lack of any visible merit—and the outrageous lack of sensitivity—in the NHS in Somerset granting its management a 5% pay rise, and one individual a 6% pay rise, when the majority of front-line staff have to accept a pay freeze?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that subject. She may recall that regional pay was the subject of an Opposition day debate and a debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) in Westminster Hall. From what was announced yesterday it is transparent that the Government are not proposing regional pay, and that is in line with evidence I gave to the NHS pay review body earlier in the year as Secretary of State for Health. We are pursing the path of using flexibility provided by “Agenda for Change”. I take my hon. Friend’s point, however, and if such pay restraint is applied to NHS staff generally, it should apply equally to management.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

On 10 July, the then Minister for Disabled People slipped out a written statement on Remploy and had to be dragged to the House. This morning, the current Minister for Disabled People, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), sneaked out another statement on Remploy, announcing 875 potential redundancies—[Interruption.] The Minister might well be getting briefed as he sits there. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, written ministerial statements are intended to be issued on non-controversial and straightforward matters, but this issue is neither of those things. Does the Leader of the House endorse such practice by the Minister for Disabled People, and will he ask her to come to the House next week to answer questions on that statement? I say to him: please do not tell me that I can address those issues at Work and Pensions questions on Monday. The decision about Remploy requires full scrutiny.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People has informed the House perfectly well and properly through a written ministerial statement. The right hon. Lady is coming awfully close to challenging the view of the Speaker on whether an urgent question would be justified.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Last week, the Government announced that they will bring forward a facility for capping interest on payday loans. However, such loans are only one part of the high-cost sub-prime sector. May we have a debate on the entire high-cost sector, and on the problems within it and ways to solve them sustainably?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that on Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill in another place, the Government tabled an amendment to create a power that would limit agreements that impose unacceptable charges, including interest on lenders; it would make contravention of those agreements unenforceable, which is a strong power. The Bill will return to this House and we will have the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments on Monday.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Numerous members of the Patriotic March movement in Colombia have been murdered over the past few months. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or statement on the support that the British Government is offering to the Colombian Government to ensure safety for all as peace talks continue?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately offer the prospect of time for debate. If I recall correctly, such issues were touched upon on Tuesday during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. Other Members will share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this matter, and he and others may look to secure an Adjournment debate, or something of that kind, to enable their views to be aired.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Many hon. Members are concerned about the extent of cuts to the regular battalions under Army 2020, including the 2nd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and the ability of the Territorial Army to fill the gap. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement so that the House can be updated on the progress of the TA plans?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State for Defence recently made a statement on the reserve forces. There is a debate this afternoon on defence personnel, in which I encourage my hon. Friend further to pursue those questions. He will know from our exchanges that Ministers have completely understood the points that he and my hon. Friends have made on the 2nd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Ministers are approaching Army 2020 in a positive way, despite the necessity to make many difficult decisions.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on maternity pay? In the week when we had the happy news from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, we did not hear the unhappy news yesterday from the Chancellor that he is imposing a mummy tax in the form of a real-terms cut in maternity pay. Was it not slippery not to include that in the statement, if not actually treasonous?

[Mr Lansley]

The Chancellor made the context perfectly clear in his autumn statement. Working-age benefits have risen by 20% over five years, but average earnings have risen by only 10%. It is therefore necessary to consider that the increase in those working-age benefits should be limited—to, he proposed, 1%. I cannot quite tell from the hon. Gentleman’s question whether he plans to support or oppose that.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House might be aware that Airedale general hospital in my constituency has been named as one of two runners-up in the Dr Foster hospital guide as a result of low mortality and its high clinical efficiency rating in the past 12 months. May we have a statement on high-performance hospitals, so that the Health Secretary can join me in congratulating the chief executive, Bridget Fletcher, and her staff on winning such an accolade?

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the chief executive and her staff at Airedale general NHS foundation trust, which I had the privilege and pleasure of visiting several years ago—it is a fine hospital. It has a high reputation not only locally, but nationally.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

According to the same guide, there has been an increase of 13% and 17% over time in the deaths of my constituents. Given the difficulties outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the death of Owen Roberts, may we have an urgent debate on why £3 billion has been taken out of the NHS and not used for front-line services?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is saying. Hon. Members listened to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions and had the utmost sympathy with her circumstances. That is precisely why Members on both sides of the House are determined to support the leaders of the nursing profession in improving the quality of care and the care and compassion with which patients are treated—they should always be treated with dignity and respect. Frankly, that is not about resources. Resources are rising in the NHS, with the exception of the NHS in Wales, where there is an 8% real-terms cut. The hon. Lady is talking about England, but she bracketed England and Wales together. In Wales, the NHS budget is being cut; in England, the NHS budget is being increased.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given that thousands of entrepreneurs, business people and investors have returned to this country since the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p in the pound to 45p, may we have a debate on what impact reducing the top rate to the higher rate of 40p in the pound would have, and how many more thousands of people will return to this country?

[Mr Lansley]

The Chancellor has made the right judgment in recognising that, in the year after the introduction of the 50p rate, the number of people reporting income of more than £1 million people halved, and the tax revenue from the richest went down by £7 billion. One must make a judgment. We cannot keep reducing the top rate of tax and hope continually to increase revenue, but it is important to support entrepreneurship and wealth creators. That is one reason why the further reduction in corporation tax by April 2014 to 21% will help put us in a very competitive position in the global race.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the House is not sitting tomorrow, may I take the opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and Mrs Bercow a very happy 10th wedding anniversary?

[Keith Vaz]

There will be no Division on that.

On the subject of families, can I ask the Leader of the House about the Succession to the Crown Bill? As he knows, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this last year. The Deputy Prime Minister chooses to use his own draftsmen to put the Succession to the Crown Bill through the House. Does the Leader of the House have a timetable for us, because he keeps telling us it will be introduced shortly? It is important that this is done before the royal baby is born.

[Mr Lansley]

Can I put in my own bid to be creep of the day? It is of course the seventh anniversary of the Prime Minister’s taking up leadership of the Conservative party, so it is a chance to congratulate him too—I know which side my bread is buttered.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question, synchronicity being what it is—[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) here. We were unable to proceed with the Succession to the Crown Bill until all the realms of which Her Majesty is Head of State signified consent. I believe that that happened on Monday, before the Duchess of Cambridge was admitted to hospital and an announcement was made, and we are now in a position to introduce the Bill shortly.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my disgust with Labour councillors on Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council who have procured political Christmas cards at the taxpayer-subsidised cost of £8 for 2,000? Can we have a debate on protecting the taxpayer against subsiding political campaigning?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Members of this House are happy to send Christmas cards to their constituents and others at their own expense. I do not see why councillors should not do the same.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Education came to the Select Committee on Education to answer questions on his plans to replace GCSEs. However, he did not answer questions. I do not mean that he avoided them, evaded them or gave non-answers—he point blank refused to answer questions from the Conservative Chair of the Committee and other Members. Given that the parliamentary role of the Education Committee is to scrutinise the Department for Education, is that not contempt of Parliament, and can we have a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was perfectly happy to answer questions on matters for which he is responsible. He was not willing to answer questions relating to the views of Ofqual, as it is an independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair.

[Mr Speaker]

If there were an intention to raise the matter of a possible contempt it would have to be done formally through the Standards and Privileges Committee, so we will not dwell on that now. I simply mention that, and I thank the Leader of the House for what he has said.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Last week, the Prime Minister visited Gloucester to see at first hand the work of the unique tri-service centre, managing the most difficult floods the country has seen since 2007. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the emergency services and partner agencies on their work in handling that difficult situation; in recognising the great improvements to flood defences made by the Environment Agency, Severn Trent and local councils; and in calling on the insurance sector to play its full part in making sure that every home is protected?

[Mr Lansley]

I join my hon. Friend on all those points. We are committed to further investment in flood defences and the benefits it will deliver, and I entirely endorse his point on insurance. Negotiations are proceeding, and I hope the insurance industry and the Government arrive at an agreement soon and provide reassurance for people.

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

May we have a debate on Fitch’s decision to put the UK’s triple A credit rating on negative watch following the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday? According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, debt will reach £1.5 trillion in 2018, while growth is estimated to be minus 0.1% for this quarter. May we have a debate on why the Chancellor might have exchanged our triple A for a triple dip?

[Mr Lansley]

My recollection is that, in response to the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday, the bond markets demonstrated that his statement reinforced the credibility of the Government’s approach, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss these issues, time will be available in a debate on the economy next Tuesday.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

When can the House expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the plan for rebasing troops from Germany?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, following the autumn statement, and bearing in mind the opportunities presented by private finance 2 as a way of approaching these investments and the consequences of the announced reductions in resource spending, the Defence Secretary will not be proceeding with an announcement on the basing review until after Christmas in order to allow the Ministry of Defence to explore further funding options and opportunities with the Treasury.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Beth Sherbourne, from Bolton West, has just won the National Apprenticeship Service award for the best higher apprentice in the UK, and for the third year running, her company, MBDA, won the manufacturing excellence award for the best company for education links as well as the award for people excellence. Other high-tech manufacturing companies, however, continue to report difficulties in recruiting apprentice and graduate engineers. May we have a debate on how to ensure that schools promote engineering and apprenticeships among their pupils?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know that the House will join her in congratulating her constituent and the company in her constituency. She makes an important point. There are 450,000—or thereabouts—apprentice opportunities each year; many of them are tremendous opportunities. I have seen in my constituency, at TWI—The Welding Institute—how people starting apprenticeships have gone through, acquired a degree and entered into the most senior positions in the company. It is a tremendous opportunity that is probably not sufficiently appreciated in schools—it is perhaps more appreciated in further education colleges—and she is right that we should encourage paying greater attention to those opportunities.

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

May we have a debate on the nuclear fleet? We have the technology and ability to build a lot more of these power stations quickly, but Hinkley is still taking too long to get to fruition. We need to build nuclear power stations to keep the lights on. The dash for gas is fine, but the power that nuclear power stations produce will keep UK plc going.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In that context, EDF’s announcement earlier this week about life extensions for Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B will be helpful. The point he makes is important, and the Energy Bill, which has now been introduced to the House, gives that sense of progress and security. I remember several years ago the then Trade and Industry Select Committee constantly being told by the last Government that they were keeping the door open to nuclear power, but it was not true: simply because they were not doing anything about it, the door was closing. We are now recognising that nuclear power, as a base load capacity, is an essential part of our energy security.

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

On 4 December 1971, McGurk’s bar was blown up by an Ulster Volunteer Force bomb, killing my uncle, Philip Garry, plus 14 other people, including two children. On the 41st anniversary, a book was published by Ciarán MacAirt, whose grandmother, Kathleen Irvine, was also killed by the bomb. After all the years of investigation, there are still closed files and letters not available, and there was collusion. Clearly, the British Government, possibly up to the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, colluded and not only co-operated, but instructed that the false story be spread that this was a bomb carried by the people into that bar and that it was an IRA bomb in transit. Is it not now time for a proper investigation by the British Government into the facts of the case, with all the files being open and the Prime Minister coming here to apologise to the families and community for how they were maligned and, for six years, blamed for a bomb that was clearly a vicious act against them?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House will appreciate the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has on this matter. He will forgive me, but I am not privy to any of the details, although I will, of course, ask my right hon. Friends to look into the matter and respond to him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on compensation claims by criminals? We read in today’s papers of a criminal who received £2,000 in compensation after being bitten by a dog that he was fleeing after breaking into a car. Are such claims not ridiculous and is it not time we had an age of austerity for compensation claims by criminals?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the House has just voted through changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I hope that that will focus criminal injuries compensation on victims, as it is intended to, and ensure that the more severe victims of crime get the compensation they require, rather than compensation sometimes being spread around in places where it is not so justified.

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

The expensive and cumbersome licensing regime for the use of wild animals in circuses was approved by the House at the end of October. It has not yet come into effect, yet already we hear rumours that the Government intend to replace it with a full ban early in the new year. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government finally intend to respect the unanimously expressed will of the House and stop using lame excuses to prevent the Bill from coming into force?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not aware that I am making any excuses whatsoever. We have made it clear that we will bring forward legislation on that, and that is still our intention.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Argentina has consistently reneged on repaying World Bank loans worth around £10 billion. The United States Government have decided not to allow any more World Bank loans to be granted. France, Germany and even countries such as Spain have followed. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on when the United Kingdom will refuse to grant further loans to Argentina from the World Bank?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will certainly contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and ask her about that. She will no doubt take the opportunity not only to let my hon. Friend know the answer, but perhaps the House as well.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Given that in my constituency there are 10 people chasing every job and given the constant demonisation of the long-term unemployed, young and old, may we have a debate on the calls made by families suffering the indignity of unemployment on our mental health and social care services?

[Mr Lansley]

May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman? It is a pleasure to have him among us. He makes an important point on behalf of his constituents. We all recognise the impact that long-term unemployment can have. That is precisely why we are working through the Work programme to ensure that people get access to work—a quarter of those who have gone into the programme have accessed jobs—but in addition, not arriving at long-term unemployment is important. We are taking steps, following the last Government, to try to ensure that people have access to psychological therapies when they have anxiety, stress and depression associated with unemployment, and I hope that will continue.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Happy wedding anniversary, Mr Speaker. A weekend break in the Holme and Colne valleys would be a great way to celebrate your 10th wedding anniversary.

The M62 motorway between Huddersfield, Leeds and Manchester has been an absolute nightmare for the past month. Yesterday morning two lanes were closed at Brighouse and at the teatime rush hour the M621 junction was closed. We regularly have debates about rail services in this House. May we have a debate about the importance of keeping our motorway network moving? Not doing so causes absolute chaos for commuters.

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is in his place on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend said. I know that he and his colleagues in the Department feel strongly about reducing the duration of motorway incidents to keep traffic moving and, through the so-called CLEAR programme—collision, lead, evaluate, act and reopen—are working with the agencies and responders to deliver exactly that.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Nottingham now has 12 food banks, as hundreds of families, many in work, are forced to rely on charity to feed themselves and their children. Yesterday we found out that the Chancellor aims to hit those poor families even harder. Is it not time that we had a debate on child poverty?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is of course free to raise this issue, and it might be appropriate for her to do so at Department for Work and Pensions questions on Monday. Child poverty has been falling, according to the last Labour Government’s definition, but we want to ensure that children move out of poverty and improve their conditions in the absolute sense. That is about work, and reducing the number of workless households has been a significant step in the right direction.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

It is now apparent that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has been aware for some time of the practice by some unscrupulous onshore wind developers of de-rating, whereby they install a large wind turbine but run it at sub-optimal level in order to benefit from the higher subsidies that are supposed to be available only to small developers. When can we have an urgent debate on the problem, which is costing consumers money and giving renewable energy a bad name?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change take this issue seriously. They have acted to address a similar issue in relation to hydro sites, and are committed to doing the same for wind. They have met and discussed the issue with wind turbine manufacturers and with Renewables UK, and I will certainly ask them if they will respond to my hon. Friend. The debate on the Energy Bill might also provide an opportunity to discuss the issue.

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

May we have a debate on how we can best honour the legacy of those British service personnel who have won the Victoria Cross? They include John Buckley from Stalybridge, who won the VC in 1857 for his gallant defence of the magazine at Delhi during the Indian mutiny. I am told that there is a memorial tablet in Delhi as testimony to his heroism, but his unmarked grave has just been discovered in a cemetery in Tower Hamlets, and it will take about £1,000 to guarantee him a proper gravestone. Will the Leader of the House help me to raise the profile of this issue with the public and help us to celebrate the work of the Victoria Cross Trust, which can make that happen?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and all other Members—and indeed those outside the House—would benefit from a visit to the Imperial War museum, just south of the river, which has an excellent new display of Victoria Cross medals that also describes the heroism that led to the awarding of them. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s feelings about his constituent and others.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I recently met my constituent, Stephen Leadbetter, who has suffered from lung problems since he was 14. He is now 22, and has recently been diagnosed as having alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Stephen believes that if he had been diagnosed earlier, his health would not now be declining so rapidly. May we have a debate about raising awareness of this and similar conditions?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important that the Department of Health should continue to support research and development into rare genetic diseases, and we have protected the research and development budget in order to do so. We consulted on a rare disease plan, and published a summary of the consultation responses last month. Work is on track to produce a UK rare diseases plan by the end of 2013, which could help my hon. Friend’s constituent and many others.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Further to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) asked earlier, may I add my voice to calls for an urgent oral statement on the closure of Remploy factories? Of the 1,000 people who have already been made redundant, only 63 have found jobs. That is scandalous, particularly in the light of the written statement today that a further 875 jobs are now at risk.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will have heard the reply that I gave earlier, but she might also wish to raise this issue at Department for Work and Pensions questions on Monday, as that would be an appropriate time to do so.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Over the past week, there has been yet more negative publicity about the Liverpool care pathway, which is so important in minimising end-of-life suffering. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Members of the House have an opportunity to debate this complex issue, rather than leaving it to the sensationalist reporting in national newspapers?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that that matter is being reviewed by some of the leading clinical bodies and by those representing families and other groups. I will of course talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health about it. The Liverpool care pathway, when properly used with informed consent, can ease people’s circumstances as they move towards the end of life, and it is important to recognise how it can be used properly.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware that this morning another nail has been hammered into the coffin of the Scottish National party’s claim that a separate Scotland would automatically become part of the European Union, in the form of a letter written to the Houses of Parliament. Will he facilitate a debate on accession to the European Union, so that as Scottish voters approach the referendum in 2014, they are able to understand the full implications of that decision for Scotland’s place in the European Union?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is a pity that that further information was not available when the House debated Scotland and the Union—just last Thursday, I believe. The House expressed its view very forcibly in that debate. As the hon. Gentleman says, the evidence demonstrating that Scotland is better off in the Union and the Union is better off with Scotland will continue to grow.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Government moved swiftly to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal who were so shamefully treated by the Labour party. The one set of people excluded from compensation were the trapped pre-1992 annuitants, all of whom could be compensated within the envelope of money set aside by the Treasury. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement or a short debate so that we can ensure that these weak, elderly, vulnerable pensioners are properly compensated in their later life?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I am sure that many thousands of those policyholders are grateful to him for his advocacy. If I may, I will ask my colleagues in the Treasury to look at the position for pre-1992 annuitants and I will let my hon. Friend and the House know if anything further can be done to help.

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

May I first thank the Leader of the House for his assistance in helping the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs find the 300 letters that my constituents had written to him, which he seemed to have lost? He has now found them, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his help. I would, however, like to ask him if he could assist me a little further in respect of the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. In a letter dated 26 June this year from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) who is responsible for crime and security, I was told that membership of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was being agreed through the usual channels and that the Committee was expected to report in the autumn. It is now well past the autumn, so I wonder whether the Leader of the House would investigate where this Bill has got to.

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, and I will write to the hon. Lady about that.

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

May we have a debate on the economic impact of the autumn statement on the east midlands, where 1.8 million individuals will benefit from an increase in their personal allowances, 325,000 businesses will be cheering an extension of the small business rate relief scheme and, more importantly, 2.7 million motorists will breathe a sigh of relief at the fact that this Government have scrapped the fuel duty increase planned by the previous Labour Government?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that I did not hear a word from the shadow Leader of the House about the cancellation of the fuel duty increases, nor about the simple fact that every time anybody goes to the petrol pumps and puts 50 litres of petrol in their tank, they will have saved £5 because they are not paying the petrol duties voted for before the last election by the Labour party.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Attorney-General said that he would apply to the High Court for new inquests into the deaths of the 96 people who died at Hillsborough and that he would make that application in early December. It is now early December, so has the right hon. Gentleman had any indication from the Attorney-General as to whether he expects to make that application as early as next week, and whether he will make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know how my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has sought to act as quickly as he can, as he has explained. I am sure that when he has anything further to add, he will make the House aware of it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The lady in my house says that it is always a miracle getting to a wedding anniversary. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that section 1.2.a of the ministerial code calls for the “principle of collective responsibility” to apply to “all Government Ministers”? May we have a statement next week from a Conservative Minister explaining what it means to Conservative Ministers and a statement from a Liberal Democrat Minister to say what it means to Liberal Democrat Ministers?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be rather easier to reply to my hon. Friend if he asked a question rather than making an allusion.

The principle of ministerial collective responsibility is precisely as it has always been. Ministers speak on behalf of the Government, and, as my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, if it is clear that Ministers have not had an opportunity to complete their scrutiny of an issue, in the circumstances of a coalition Government it is entirely proper for Ministers—more than one Minister; in this case, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—to reflect ongoing considerations within the Government. It is an accurate reflection of the policy of the Government at that time.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on an ever-increasing health risk? I refer to the impact of wind turbines on people living near wind turbines and wind turbine farms, more and more of whom are coming to my surgeries suffering from severe mental health problems.

[Mr Lansley]

Time does not permit me to enter into a debate about the health effects of wind turbines, but I know that there are various arguments, and I have read some of the competing literature, as it were. I will of course draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Energy, and will ask them to respond.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When businesses sacked staff by text message, that was rightly condemned throughout the country. People said that it was cowardly and despicable. When, a few years ago, Burberry announced the closure of its factory in Treorchy at the beginning of December, that was condemned as well, on the grounds that it was the wrong time of the year to do such a thing. Today, the Government have done both those things together: they have announced by e-mail that a lot of people working in Remploy factories are to lose their jobs, and they have done it in the run-up to Christmas.

In a way, I almost do not want the Leader of the House to respond to what I have said, but I do want him to think about this. Please, please may we have an oral statement on Monday? The people who work for Remploy are very vulnerable and need to hear the arguments in full from a Minister in the House, and we need to be able to ask questions about the specific situation in all our many constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I think I have made it clear to the House that, in my view, informing the House by means of a written ministerial statement is perfectly proper. An oral statement is not simply an expression of the importance of an issue; it is made by a Minister who is announcing policy, and, as far as I am aware, what was conveyed in the written ministerial statement did not represent any change in policy. It recognised that, as had been anticipated, the Remploy board would conclude its assessment of the stage 2 businesses. Remploy is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department has kept the House fully informed, but the statement did not represent any change of policy on the part of the Department.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint the Hon. Sir Alexander Neil Logie Butterfield, Elizabeth Jane Padmore, Miss Anne Whitaker and Professor Anthony Wayland Wright to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 11 January 2013.

The motion provides for the fixed-term appointment to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority of four ordinary members of the board, having effect from 11 January 2013, following the expiry of the existing board members’ term of office on 10 January 2013. I do not intend to detain the House for too long, but it may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the process of these appointments and introduce the candidates. I should point out at this point that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy was appointed for a fixed term of five years, which does not expire until 3 November 2014. He will remain chair of the board.

The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which established IPSA, states that the board of IPSA consists of the chair and four ordinary members, and establishes certain qualifications for some of those members: at least one must have held, but no longer hold, high judicial office; at least one must be eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor, by virtue of chapter 2 of part 42 of the Companies Act 2006; one must be a person who has been, but is no longer, a Member of the House of Commons; and there must be one other member, for whom no qualification has been specified.

In 2009, Her Majesty, on an Humble Address from this House, appointed the right hon. Justice Scott Baker, Jackie Ballard, Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp to be the four ordinary members of the board of IPSA, following its establishment. As I said, their terms of office expire on 10 January 2013, three years after their appointment. May I take this opportunity to thank them for their work over the past three years? Nobody in the House will need reminding that the past three years have not been easy, as was somewhat inevitable given what was being asked of IPSA and the time scale it was working to. The National Audit Office, in 2011, recognised that it was a “major achievement” for IPSA to establish itself

“as a functioning organisation in a very short time”.

The Office of Government Commerce said that the “impossible” was “delivered”. I am in no doubt that the fact of an independent, transparent, regulator has made a significant contribution to increasing public confidence on the issue of MPs’ expenses, and will continue to do so into the future. Indeed, IPSA is now consulting on the important issue of a long-term proposal for Members’ pay and pensions, which I am sure will further reassure the public that there will be no return to the problems of the past.

Earlier this year Mr Speaker, recognising that four of the five initial appointments were reaching their end, sought legal advice on the interpretation of the Act as it related to reappointments. The advice was that although the Act permits board members to serve a second fixed term, whether consecutive or not, that is subject to the requirement that the names appearing on a motion before this House must have been selected by the Speaker on merit on the basis of fair and open competition: in other words, the posts have to be opened to competition at the end of each fixed term. The four members whose terms of office were expiring did not seek reappointment on that basis. That is a matter for them.

Following the precedent established in 2009, Mr Speaker appointed an independent panel to run the competition and to report to him with recommendations. The panel was chaired by Dame Denise Platt, a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of IPSA, also sat on the panel, as did Dame Janet Gaymer, a former commissioner for public appointments and lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

The panel was assisted in its deliberations by the right hon. Sir Anthony May QC, who was nominated to the panel by the Lord Chief Justice; Martin Sinclair, assistant auditor general of the National Audit Office, who was nominated to the panel by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and Peter Atkinson, former MP for Hexham, who was nominated to the panel by Mr Speaker. Those individuals were able to provide insights into the statutory qualifications for IPSA required of board members, as I set out previously.

Mr Speaker provided the panel with a role and person specification for the board posts, which he had agreed with Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. The recruitment process involved stages of advertisement, longlisting, shortlisting and final interview. The panel’s recommendations to the Speaker were made in the form of a ranked list, with reasons, to support selection on the basis of merit. The names on the motion were selected by Mr Speaker, with the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as required by the statute.

The candidates before the House are the hon. Sir Neil Butterfield, who has held high judicial office as a High Court judge sitting in the Queen’s bench division from 1995 to 2012; Liz Padmore, for the post to which no specific qualifications apply, who has a wide range of public and private sector experience, most recently as chair of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Miss Anne Whitaker MA ACA, proposed for appointment as the auditor member of IPSA; and Professor Tony Wright, formerly Member for Cannock Chase, who is proposed as the parliamentary member of IPSA. A short career profile for each has been made available to Members as part of the explanatory memorandum supporting this debate. I do not intend to detain the House by going through their extensive résumés, but I can assure the House that each candidate would bring a wealth of relevant experience to their respective posts.

Under paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, the terms and conditions for each appointment are determined by the Speaker. Clearly, it is better for IPSA if appointments to its board expire over a period, not all together, providing greater continuity of governance. Mr Speaker therefore asked the independent panel, as part of its assessment, to consider and recommend varying lengths of appointment for the candidates. The panel recommended that two candidates be appointed for three years and two for five years. Sir Neil Butterfield has been recommended for a three-year appointment, reflecting his own preference, and Professor Tony Wright has been recommended for a three-year appointment, so that the next competition for a parliamentary member of IPSA can take place shortly after the general election that is due in 2015.

It is a matter of public record that Sir Ian Kennedy wrote to Mr Speaker to express concerns about the process before the independent panel was appointed. Members might wish to note, however, that after the independent panel had reported, Sir Ian Kennedy issued a statement saying that that the independent panel was

“chaired impeccably by Dame Denise Platt and proceeded in a thoroughly proper manner”,

and that his “fears were not realised”. He has also issued a statement describing the nominees as “impressive individuals” giving him “great confidence” for IPSA’s work.

In this debate it is important that we should keep in mind the reasons why IPSA was created and the importance of the work it has still to do. It was established at great speed and in difficult circumstances and we should recognise that under Sir Ian Kennedy’s leadership the board of IPSA has made a significant contribution to the task of establishing the authority and ensuring there is transparency about Members’ business costs and expenses. These steps are essential to the restoration of the public’s confidence in their Parliament.

It is of great importance, in my view, that we uphold the independence of IPSA. This enables us to refute any implication that Members of Parliament can seek to manipulate the system to their advantage. As we have seen, it is not proof against the interpretation of the media, but for any reasonable person an MP’s adherence to the rules set by IPSA should be a sufficient defence.

The four individuals named in the motion have been through a rigorous and independent recruitment process to be considered by the House today. If appointed, they will bring to IPSA not only the experience required by the statute, but a considerable range of skills and knowledge acquired in both the public and private sectors.

I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and to the other Members who have contributed to the debate.

I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to believe that the IPSA board will provide the House with a proposal for a new scheme for appointments. The body was established under the Parliamentary Standards Act and is bound by it, and the nature of the appointment scheme is set out in that legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made a number of points. I am sure that Sir Ian Kennedy will respond to him and I will invite Sir Ian to include in that response a reference to how the board intends to have an induction programme for its new members. That is, of course, a matter for the board—it is not a matter for me or, indeed, for the House—but I will invite him to respond on that point.

[Sir Bob Russell]

In his discussions, will the Leader of the House suggest that the website that gives details of board meetings should be kept more up to date? It notes that the last board meeting took place in July, but I assume that it has met in the past five to six months.

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask Sir Ian Kennedy to respond to that point, too. I confess that I do not know whether the board has met since July, but he will no doubt be able to better inform my hon. Friend.

I have known Sir Ian Kennedy over a number of years—less in the IPSA context than in his previous role as chair of the Healthcare Commission; I knew him in his capacity in that role—and think that on 22 November he probably understated his knowledge of Members of Parliament and what they do in this place. He probably regrets that, but I know from my conversations with him that he regards knowledge of the role of MPs and their activities and important work as important. He also believes it important not only for IPSA to recognise that fully in what it does, but for the public to recognise it as part of an understanding of how IPSA goes about its work and makes its decisions.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does the Leader of the House agree that Sir Ian has been taken aback by the lack of understanding among the public of the role of Members in this House? It may be that he misspoke on the radio and attributed to himself the understanding that he had picked up from the public consultation, which is that many members of the public know about Prime Minister’s questions, but not the detail of what else we do in this House. I expect that that is what he meant.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Sir Ian may well have been reflecting the public’s perception. They understand much more about what we do as constituency Members of Parliament and, frankly, they value it more. I know from conversations with Sir Ian that that is something that he, as well as we in this House, hopes to remedy. One of the substantial number of criteria in the person and role specification that was agreed between Mr Speaker and Ian Kennedy, which would have been reflected in the panel’s judgments, was a candidate’s understanding and awareness of the role of Members of Parliament.

[Mr Chope]

Is it not correct that in that radio interview, Sir Ian Kennedy had the opportunity to explain to the public who were listening what we do here? He could have told them about his understanding of what Members of Parliament do, but instead he chose to use a cheap jibe, pandering to public prejudice.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand what my hon. Friend says. Sir Ian must speak for himself as this is his responsibility. The shadow Leader of the House and I were just reflecting our own conversations with him. He would have wanted to reflect his desire for the public to know more about what we do here and his belief that IPSA should fully understand the nature of the work that we do. If he did not reflect that in his interview on the “Today” programme, he will no doubt have an opportunity to remedy that in future.

I am grateful to Members for the points that they have made in this debate. I hope, along with other Members, that the members nominated in the motion take forward the important work that IPSA has to do in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 3 December—General debate on the Leveson inquiry.

Tuesday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by motion relating to the appointment of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority board members.

Wednesday 5 December—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill.

Thursday 6 December—A debate on a motion relating to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, followed by general debate on defence personnel.

The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

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

Monday 10 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill.



Tuesday 11 December—General debate on public expenditure.

Wednesday 12 December—Opposition day (12th allotted day, first part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 13 December—Motions relating to standards and privileges, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ms Eagle]

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

The flooding across England and Wales this week has caused widespread chaos and, sadly, a number of deaths. I would like to add my tribute on the work of the emergency services and all those involved in providing assistance to those affected.

The increasing frequency of serious weather affecting the UK underlines the importance of robust flood defences, yet spending on flood defences has been cut by a quarter, delaying much-needed schemes. Even the Government’s own advisory Committee on Climate Change warned in July that Ministers are not doing enough, and now hundreds of thousands of people risk being unable to obtain insurance because the Government have not reached an agreement with the industry. We welcome the statement earlier in the week from the Environment Secretary, but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on measures to protect people across the UK from flooding, especially in light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report published today?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging a statement by the Foreign Secretary on Palestinian statehood —something I asked for last week. At business questions last week I also raised the matter of the Liberal Democrat party member who masqueraded as an independent in the police and crime commissioner elections. I asked for an urgent statement, but unfortunately the Leader of the House has not been able to find time for one. I wonder whether he will reconsider, however, because I have managed to get hold of a letter put out by the Liberal Democrat candidate standing in today’s Middlesbrough by-election. In it he says,

“things seem to be getting worse, not better.”

I have read the letter very carefully, but, by some strange omission, nowhere does it mention that the Liberal Democrats have been in government for the last two and a half years, so will the Leader of the House now find time for a statement on cynical electoral subterfuge?

We are all looking forward to the publication of the Leveson report later today. During business questions on 28 June, I asked:

“Will the Leader of the House arrange in future business for Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers to share the speaking time to give both parties ample opportunity to differentiate themselves?”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 448.]

I must confess that I meant that suggestion to be parody, but yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister made a request to have a separate statement from the Prime Minister on the Leveson report and I see today that that has been granted. What on earth is happening to collective responsibility? I notice that the play “Yes, Prime Minister” is leaving the Trafalgar theatre to go on a UK tour, but with this Government in office there will at least still be one farce running in Whitehall.

The Government have been struggling to get their legislation through the House of Lords. This Government’s peers easily outnumber Opposition peers, yet for the entire duration of the Labour Government our peers never made up more than 29% of the total. May I say to the Leader of the House that the problem the Government have is not with the quantity of their peers, it is with the quality of their legislation?

There have been reports in the media that the Prime Minister is planning to create 100 additional peers, despite the fact that the House of Lords is already the second biggest legislature in the world—after the equally democratic Chinese National People’s Congress. Filling the House of Lords might be the only successful job creation scheme this Government have come up with, but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent statement on the seemingly inexorable expansion of the second Chamber?

Word reaches me that this week’s Cabinet meeting was even more fractious than usual. Apparently, the Chancellor blamed the Culture Secretary for failing to deliver on the Government’s promise to roll out superfast broadband and the Culture Secretary blamed her predecessor, with her aides saying that she had done more in two months than the current Health Secretary had managed in two years. Astonishingly, the welfare Minister, Lord Freud, blamed the Chancellor for the abject failure of the Work programme and the Prime Minister blamed the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for the failure of enterprise zones. While Cabinet members bicker, we have a broadband network that is not connected, a job scheme that is not working and enterprise zones where there is no enterprise, while the only growth strategy they have is for the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister called himself the “heir to Blair”, but is he not just the natural successor to Jim Hacker?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks about the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Palestine. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services and the work of Environment Agency staff in supporting communities that have been so heavily damaged by flooding. I have personal knowledge of the area around Exeter and of St Asaph in north Wales; these are dreadful events for people to have to live through.

It is terrifically important that we protect people wherever we can. That is why the Government are allocating £2.17 billion over four years. The hon. Lady will have heard the Prime Minister say yesterday, in response to questions, that we hope to leverage additional support for flood defences. She will also know from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that we continue to be in discussions with the Association of British Insurers about securing protection for householders through insurance as well. I will, of course, continue to keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how the House can be kept informed on these matters.

I am trying to think of anything else that the hon. Lady asked for that could be considered business of the House, but there was not much. She commented on press reports about what happened at Cabinet, but today of all days she might recognise that we should not believe everything we read in the newspapers.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister being an “heir to Blair”, and she talked about the appointment of peers in another place, but my recollection is that Tony Blair made 374 peers. By that standard, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been notably reticent.

We in the House, including Opposition Members who have been in government, know that “Yes Minister”, when it was broadcast by the BBC and even today, is, in fact, a documentary programme and not a work of fiction. I am somewhat unusual in this place in having been not only my own version of Jim Hacker, but Bernard in a former life. The one thing I am not expecting to be is a Sir Humphrey at any stage. If at any point we can illustrate “Yes Minister”, I am sure we will set out to do so.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for talking about growth and welfare. Yesterday we had a debate about those issues. I looked at reports of past business questions for a request for an Opposition day debate on employment. Yesterday, the Opposition did talk about jobs but not about how to create them. They did not have a policy for that—it was a policy-free zone from the Labour party yesterday. What a missed opportunity. The Labour party had an opportunity to use its time to celebrate the 70-year anniversary of the Beveridge report. We could have celebrated the sense of how work is a route out of poverty and want, and how social solidarity through welfare provision is properly a way in which we can build a stronger society, as the Government are setting out to do. We could also have celebrated the contribution made by a Liberal as part of a coalition Government under a Conservative Prime Minister for the long-term benefit of this country.

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

Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on people who have emigrated outside the European Union yet still claim benefits such as winter fuel payments and child benefit?

[Mr Lansley]

I pay tribute to the great deal of work my hon. Friend has done on this issue. As we head towards winter, it is terrifically important that we look after communities. That is one reason why I was so pleased in the past week to see the announcement of some 149 successful projects that are being supported by the Department of Health’s warm homes healthy people fund this winter, following the successful work last winter. This is in partnership with local authorities, Age UK and other charities, and I know that my hon. Friend and others across the House have been active proponents of that kind of community-based support for people at risk.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

In her excellent report last week, the Children’s Commissioner identified missing episodes, visits to sexual health clinics and use of mental health services as strong indicators that a child may be being sexually abused. However, current Department of Health guidelines on sharing such health data with other agencies are creating a postcode lottery because of different interpretations at both the local and national level about what data can be shared. The situation is very concerning because some children are not being identified as being at risk, and are therefore continuing to be abused. Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the Children’s Commissioner’s excellent report and the data-sharing issues it raises?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that. I read the report, as I know many hon. Members will have done. They will have been alarmed by some of the things that the deputy Children’s Commissioner had to say and will feel it is very important that we follow up on it. The House recently had an opportunity to debate child sexual exploitation, but that is not to say that there is not a case for further such opportunities. The subject she discusses is an area where the further progress we are making on the role of local safeguarding children boards in local authorities should enable us to have, among other things, better sharing of information to protect children.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

In the case of the Bedford free school, the Planning Inspectorate recommended a full award of costs against Bedford borough council because of its

“unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense”.

May we have a debate about how councils in charge of education departments can use taxpayers’ money for school books, computers, gym equipment and improved facilities, rather than wasting it on trying to stop excellent, committed teachers from doing their job?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point very well. I know that people in Bedford feel strongly about the benefits that the Bedford free school can bring in extending choice to parents and in promoting improvements in educational standards. If he catches your eye, Mr Speaker, he may have an opportunity to raise this issue in Education questions on Monday.

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

The Leader of the House will not need me to tell him that all of us are very concerned about vulnerable young people in this country. The protection of childhood is something that most of us hold dear, as do the children’s charities. May we have a debate about what we would lose if childhood was shrunk by giving children—16-year-olds—the vote? I am not against that or for it; what I want is a serious discussion in this House before we take away protections from children up to 18 and push adulthood down to 16.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that this issue is being considered by the Backbench Business Committee, on the basis of representations made to it by a number of hon. Members. Clearly I am happy for the Committee to consider whether time should be made available for such a debate.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the success of our free schools policy? In my constituency, the I-Foundation has opened the first state-sponsored Hindu primary school and a secondary school. They are both so over-subscribed that capacity is having to be doubled in just two years. The I-Foundation is now launching a campaign to have five further Hindu free schools across the country, with a further five to follow. This demonstrates parental choice, both for a religious type of education and for the type of education that new organisations are providing.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend sets out a good argument both for free schools and for our taking the opportunity to celebrate the successes coming from them. That is happening around the country and often in this place we do not take enough opportunities to recognise what the successes in policies mean in practice for the populations we serve. It is not easy, as time is short in this House, but we will continue to look for where such opportunities might arise.

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

May we have a statement as soon as possible on progress on the implementation of Sir John Holmes’s report on the governance principles for the award of military medals in this country, and particularly on the issue of those who served in the Arctic convoys, on which we continue to receive many representations, and the need to recognise those heroes properly through the award of a medal?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will have noted when I announced the forthcoming business that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time next Thursday for a debate on defence personnel. I completely understand that the breadth of issues that will need to be encompassed in that debate is very wide, but he might recognise that there is an opportunity there, not least to recognise past service.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Later today we will have what I think is a unique event. The Deputy Prime Minister, whose main responsibility is to support the Prime Minister, will make a statement opposing the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement so that the Deputy Prime Minister knows from which Dispatch Box he is to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recognise, I know, that Ministers make statements to this House on Government policy. As “Erskine May” makes clear, the reason they make statements is to explain to the House how they propose to pursue public business. As for this afternoon’s statements, it is perfectly reasonable to give an immediate response to an inquiry as wide-ranging as the Leveson inquiry in order to convey as fully as possible to the House a sense of how the coalition Government—a unique event for us—are pursuing the process of considering and responding to the report. The House will be better informed by two statements than it would have been by one alone and both are ministerial statements on Government policy.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Yesterday, Lloyds Banking Group announced the closure of the call centre in Motherwell that employs 200 people. That call centre has now been moved to Glasgow city centre and, as everyone knows, it will not be convenient for many of those workers to move across west central Scotland. Will the Leader of the House give time for a statement to discuss how the banking groups treat not only their customers but their employees?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents about the consequences of commercial decisions made by companies. He will know, not least from the points made by a number of Members during business questions, that the relationship between banking groups and their communities, as well as the service they offer to local communities, are issues of importance to Members that continue to arise. It is not just a matter for the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Perhaps he and others might like to consider whether there is a case for a debate in Back-Bench time to raise those issues on behalf of their constituents.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report and I also welcome the coalition’s commitment to fairness and to ensuring that work always pays. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate on the performance of the retail banks that are failing to support small businesses in my constituency, which are eager to invest in jobs but are denied working capital?

[Mr Lansley]

There is a synchronicity between the previous question and this one as regards the relationship between banks and our local communities. I sometimes share with my hon. Friend a sense of frustration about the extent to which the conventional banking system now supports small and medium-sized businesses. That is why our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, together with the Treasury, is so actively pursuing those issues, not least through the recent announcement of the operational start of the new business banking support and the support that that gives to new challenger banks to supply new innovative routes of lending to small businesses.

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

May we have a debate on the apparent abuse of the electrical equipment recycling market? Four multinationals—Sylvania, GE, Osman and Philips—appear to be seeking to subvert the effect of the forthcoming recast waste electrical and electronic equipment directive by operating a cartel in relation to the recycling of waste electrical equipment, which is putting the viability of independent recycling companies and local jobs, including in my constituency, at risk.

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady says, but I am sure she will understand that I am not in a position to comment on it without any direct knowledge of those issues. From her description, she should bear in mind not only the question of whether that is a suitable topic for debate in the House, but the fact that, as I know from having served on the Standing Committees of the Competition Bill and the Enterprise Bill in previous Parliaments, legislation is in place that allows her and others who have evidence to go to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation of those practices.

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

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport secured appropriate terms for all mobile operators in the forthcoming auction, and significant investment has been made in fixed-line broadband throughout the whole of the UK. May we have a debate on the progress of broadband roll-out to learn about the best practice in some of the areas that have operated faster than others and to ensure that the scale and terms of those contracts are suitable to deliver competition?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. He refers to the digital switchover, which was a major programme delivered on time and under budget with few complaints about it—a very good example of collaboration. We will now have the benefit of the spectrum auction that is coming up. Through that and other routes, the broadband roll-out across the country can be a major contributor to growth. I hope it will be achieved rapidly and on time, and in a way that is stimulated by competition.

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

Jo Darling is a full-time carer in my constituency, while also studying for a PhD. However, she is unable to access carer’s allowance because she is a full-time student, and she is unable to work because of her caring responsibilities. She has only a £6,000 a year scholarship to live off and is deeply worried that she will have to give up her studies because she is struggling to get by. May we have a statement on what steps the Government will take to provide proper support to wonderful carers such as Jo, who are both full-time students and full-time carers?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Lady wishes me to do so, I will be glad to ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions to comment on the specifics of the individual case. Carer’s allowance is intended to be an allowance in relation to the loss of potential for earnings. If somebody is in full-time education, by definition one cannot justify carer’s allowance to that extent. On support for carers generally, the House has just agreed the establishment of a Joint Committee to consider the draft Care and Support Bill, which includes the most important legislative measures ever presented to give a basis of support for carers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I thank you for that kind introduction, Mr Speaker. Following the publication of yesterday’s Ofsted report on the performance of local education authorities, may we have a debate in Government time about why some LEAs, such as Reading, are so much worse at providing, for example, primary school education than either surrounding authorities or demographically comparable local education authorities?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. We might examine that. He might like to raise the matter at Education questions on Monday, but in any case it is an illustration of the benefits that come from the transparency of the publication of data. In a number of fields, including education, that enables us and the public to examine unwarranted variation between different parts of the country, and to try to drive out poor performance and drive up good performance.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I raise again the issue of a signal-controlled crossing on Darlaston road in my constituency? A four-year-old child was knocked over and suffered serious head injuries, and a woman suffered a fractured pelvis—all this on the crossing. Three hundred local people have signed a petition, yet the council refuses to upgrade the crossing to a signal-controlled crossing. I have written to everybody—the Department for Transport, the council—and still they refuse. Can the Leader of the House use his good offices to point me in the right direction, perhaps with an urgent debate, or tell me where to go next before there is a death on the crossing?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to hear that about the hon. Lady’s constituents, with whom I am sure we all sympathise. I will of course take the opportunity to talk with colleagues, not least in the Department for Transport, because I know from experience in my constituency that the lead for that comes best through the Department to Network Rail. I will be happy to correspond with the Department on that.

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

May I ask my right hon. Friend again for a debate on the conduct of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and its handling of allegations of child abuse in north Wales? A report issued last weekend by the bureau’s trustees sought to whitewash their responsibility for the widely discredited “Newsnight” report on the matter. The licence fee payer now faces a bill of £185,000 in damages, but many would argue that the main responsibility lies with the shoddy journalism of the bureau’s chief reporter, Angus Stickler. I believe that the bureau bears equal responsibility; surely it should share the BBC’s costs.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the allocation of those costs. Technically, these are matters not for the Government but for the BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. He will share my desire for the BBC to make rapid progress with the Pollard review and publish it in full so that the public can see what was done in relation to the “Newsnight” report.

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

Continuing the “Yes Minister” theme, more than a month ago I personally delivered 300 letters from constituents about flooding insurance to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I raised the issue with the Leader of the House a few weeks ago, because I had received no acknowledgement or response. Yesterday, I had a telephone call from the Secretary of State’s private office to tell me that they could not find the 300 letters. Will the Leader of the House advise me on what I should do next?

[Mr Lansley]

I will be happy to continue to talk with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Lady will be aware from my right hon. Friend’s recent statement, and indeed from Prime Minister’s questions, that we have been in active negotiations with the Association of British Insurers and are determined to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

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

May we please have a debate on the operation of free markets so that I and others who oppose the Government’s plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol and regard it as yet another unnecessary extension of the nanny state can put our views on the record?

[Mr Lansley]

I have never found my hon. Friend backwards in coming forward to make his views known, and I am sure that opportunities for him to do so will present themselves. With regard to the minimum unit price for alcohol, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on behalf of the Government a consultative document yesterday. The Government are clear that a minimum unit price will contribute to tackling the deep-seated issues related to binge drinking and alcohol abuse. A report published by the chief medical officer only the week before last shows that this country has such a high relative level of death from liver disease, and the level is rising while in other countries it is falling. That tells us that we have to do something.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

When will we have a debate or a statement on the ombudsman’s report on the use of bailiffs by the courts and local authorities?

[Mr Lansley]

I have no knowledge of an immediate opportunity for such a debate, but I will of course look at whether there is any opportunity for an oral or written statement in due course.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

Experiencing the death of a loved one is sadly inevitable for us all, but dealing with the funeral costs can come as a very unwelcome shock for many. The social fund payment has substantially devalued over the years and many families find themselves deep in debt despite being eligible for a payment. May we have a debate on how we can help families provide a dignified funeral for a loved one without adding further financial stress at a difficult time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that she may wish to raise on Monday week in Department for Work and Pensions questions. I know from my former ministerial responsibilities that we are continuing to consider how the cost of death certification, which is a significant part of the overall costs, is to be met in future, in order if possible not to add to the burdens that people face when they are bereaved. In addition, I will ask my hon. Friends in the Department to correspond with her about how they are considering those issues.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the role of employment agencies in local labour markets? That is of huge concern in Corby and east Northamptonshire, where too many people find that they are on zero-hours contracts with no guarantees of work, even though they may have travelled some distance or at some cost to get to their place of work, and are often on low wages. There is also a big concern about employment agencies often recruiting from overseas rather than making sure that local people can get into work.

[Mr Lansley]

It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Gentleman to business questions. I noted that he had a very successful maiden speech in last week’s debate on manufacturing industry—an important debate in which we welcomed him to our deliberations.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question, he might like to consider raising that issue at Work and Pensions questions. The agency workers directive will have some effect, and I will be happy to find out a little more about its impact on his local labour market and to correspond with him.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

The West Yorkshire fire and rescue integrated management action plan proposes the closure of Marsden fire station. In recent years there have been widespread fires up on Marsden moors and a major fire at a chemical factory just up the valley in Linthwaite. Does my right hon. Friend agree that West Yorkshire fire authority and the management plan need to take into account all these local factors when making these tough decisions?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the responsibility of fire and rescue authorities to make such decisions. As he knows, they are required to have in place fire and rescue service integrated risk management plans to identify local needs and to tackle existing and potential risks to communities. That should create a more transparent approach to how they use their resources to evaluate and respond to risk, and it is the context in which my hon. Friend can hold them to account in doing so.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Leader of the House has found time to reschedule the debate on the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, which many of my constituents will follow with great interest.

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on investment in the east midlands regional economy? Recent figures show that we are apparently bottom of the list for regional growth fund allocations, while other figures show that we not doing as well as we perhaps should as regards other types of Government investment. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would appreciate the opportunity to lobby Ministers in such a debate.

[Mr Lansley]

Although I announce the business, I cannot entirely take credit—

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

It was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel).

[Mr Lansley]

I am coming to that. The Backbench Business Committee should take credit for allocating time initially and finding additional time next week for the debate on the anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, and I am glad about that.

A number of Members in different regions have sought Adjournment debates to discuss their regional economies. The House will welcome that, as will the Government, because such debates provide an opportunity for us to demonstrate how the regional growth fund and our industrial strategy are leading to increases in employment across the country and a rebalancing of our economy, as was discussed in last week’s debate on manufacturing.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The extraordinary levels of rainfall over the past week have caused the banks of the River Avon to burst. Local residents, National Farmers Union members and farmers in Britford have been warning that that would be likely as a result of stopping weed cutting in the river. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how local expertise can be listened to in order to avoid changes in regulations that allow these risks to become much higher, as we have seen this week?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his constituents. What happened will have been very concerning for them. It is important that the Environment Agency and local authorities take a proactive approach. After the flooding in my constituency in October 2001, the local authorities and parishes, the Environment Agency, I as the Member of Parliament and others met to establish a programme to deal with precisely the risks that he mentions. I would have far preferred it if we had done that proactively, rather than waiting until the flooding had demonstrated where the risks were greatest.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When the Government opted into the EU directive on human trafficking they claimed that the role of an independent rapporteur could be fulfilled by the interdepartmental ministerial group. Some of us queried that. The group produced its first report on 18 October. As yet, there is no sign of this House having an opportunity to debate it. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate the report on human trafficking?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, look at whether there is an opportunity for such a debate. The hon. Lady may also wish to discuss the possibility with the Backbench Business Committee. I will gladly consider with my colleagues whether we can create such an opportunity.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Pendle’s young entrepreneur of the year, 26-year-old Simon Mellin, has established a bistro and farm shop with his younger brother. Roaming Roosters opened just a few months ago, but is already employing 30 members of staff. With the help of Pendle borough council and Nelson and Colne college, Roaming Roosters ran the “Can you hack it?” programme, which saw 10 young people compete for two butchery apprenticeships in the firm. Simon is now helping the other eight youngsters to find work with local businesses. May we have a debate about apprenticeships so that all MPs across the House can cite innovative examples from their constituencies and discuss the Government’s progress in this area?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Today, not least, it is good to have a different reference to hacking—in this case in relation to butchery. That example shows how apprenticeships are being made available in small and medium-sized businesses, and is a signal of how we can create jobs in the future. In the past, jobs have come overwhelmingly from small and medium-sized businesses and from growing businesses. If apprentices are able to find such places, they will be able to secure the jobs of the future. That is why it is encouraging that 950,000 apprenticeships have started in the past two years with 100,000 employers in 160,000 locations. I hope that what my hon. Friend describes is just one of many such schemes that we will be able to support.

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

Yesterday afternoon, during the emergency business statement, the Leader of the House stated, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that the Prime Minister would be speaking for the Government, not just the Conservative part of the Government. What on earth has changed? Who will be speaking for the Government this afternoon?

[Mr Lansley]

I thought that I had made that clear in response to an earlier question. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will be making statements this afternoon on behalf of the Government—they are ministerial statements.

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

As my right hon. Friend may know, at least 12 male Members of Parliament and a number of the House’s staff are taking part in “Movember” to raise awareness and money for prostate cancer charities. I am doing so on behalf of the Chestnut Appeal in Devon and Cornwall. May we have a debate to discuss the importance of tackling prostate cancer?

[Mr Lansley]

We are now right at the end of “Movember”, so this is an opportunity to thank my hon. Friend, other colleagues and members of the House service who have given such a splendid tonsorial display in support of research into better treatments for prostate cancer, testicular cancer and so on. Members from across the House will know of friends or loved ones who have suffered from prostate cancer. There are real opportunities, both through earlier diagnosis and in the development of further treatments. Treatments such as brachytherapy and robotic surgery have improved significantly the chances of those who suffer from prostate cancer, and there is more that we can achieve.

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House would probably like to lead an Adjournment debate on that matter. He would do so with great force and eloquence, and possibly at some length.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is too long. I am sorry but the hon. Lady is giving a dissertation. I am sure it is very interesting, but it is not a question.

[Mr Lansley]

None the less, Mr Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. Friend whose expertise and responsibilities on this issue are important. I cannot commit to a debate in the way she proposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement and, as I have said, I will continue to discuss with him about how and when he can update the House most appropriately. He will address on behalf of the Government all issues related to flooding, including those raised by other hon. Friends.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced local authority access to the Bellwin scheme that will deliver reimbursement above the threshold for up to 85% of their costs.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Construction work recently started on a project to lengthen the runway at Birmingham airport, and a project facilitated by the regional growth fund will open the west midlands to emerging markets and create many new jobs in our region. May we have a debate on the role of Birmingham airport and its place in the west midlands regional economy, and on how we expect the regional growth fund to expand that economy?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes—I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and as we discuss airport capacity we can continue to debate and reflect on how to improve and use the capacity available in regional airports. From my experience in a previous life as deputy director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, I know there are many unrealised opportunities for regional airports to be hubs for economic growth.

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the gist. I call Mr Andrew Jones.

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

The UK internet economy is forecast to grow to 12% of our GDP by 2016. North Yorkshire is well placed to capitalise on that growth through its leadership of the broadband roll-out and its Superfast North Yorkshire project. May we have a debate on the digital economy and what progress we can make on that, as it is critical to future economic growth?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right, and across the country the Government are actively pursuing access to fast broadband so that every part of the country can have the economic stimulus that it provides, the social interconnections it sometimes enables, and better delivery of public services. I hope we will have a competition, because different places across the country are proceeding at different paces—from my experience, I am sure that north Yorkshire will be among those at the forefront of such a competition.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Andrew Jones.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement.

As I announced last week, the Prime Minister will make a statement in response to the Leveson report. With your kind permission, Mr Speaker, I expect that statement to be made to the House at 3 pm tomorrow, at the conclusion of the Back-Bench debate on Scotland and the Union.

Given the extent of the interest in the Leveson report, I can tell the House that the scheduled Back-Bench debate on the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians will now take place at a later date.

I will set out the forthcoming business as usual tomorrow.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for making clear what will happen tomorrow after the publication of the Leveson report. Can he enlighten the House on whether, when the Prime Minister responds to the report, he will speak on behalf of the whole Government or merely of a part of the Conservative party?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said, the Prime Minister will make a statement on behalf of the Government.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

May I say on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee that, although we are obviously disappointed, we understand the reason why business has been changed? The bid for the debate was extremely well supported by the Committee, so if there is anything that we can do to accommodate the debate in good order, we will do it.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee for their forbearance. One of the consequences of what I have announced is that, although less Back-Bench time has been allocated for tomorrow, more will be allocated at a later date. I hope that the Committee will find a ready opportunity to accommodate this important debate.

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

As the proposer of the debate that will now be postponed, I am clearly disappointed, but I fully appreciate the circumstances. Mindful of the subject’s topicality, I would be happy to reduce the time allowed for the debate from three hours to one and a half hours if that is of assistance to those who schedule things, so that we can have it sooner rather than later.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his disappointment and thank him for his forbearance, too. I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee, which considers the allocation of time, will have heard what he has said.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 26 November—Remaining stages of the Small Charitable Donations Bill. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the EU Council.

Tuesday 27 November—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.

Wednesday 28 November—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 29 November—A debate on a motion relating to Scotland and the Union, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Lord Justice Leveson intends to publish his report on 29 November. The Prime Minister plans to make a statement to the House subsequently.

Friday 30 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 December will include:

Monday 3 December—General debate on the Leveson inquiry.



Tuesday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of IPSA board members.

Wednesday 5 December—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill.

Thursday 6 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. The recent military conflict in Gaza has horrified many Members of the House. There is widespread relief that there is now a ceasefire, but it feels like the possibility of a lasting settlement is slipping away as facts on the ground make any agreement harder to reach. We welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House earlier this week. As the Leader of the House will know, the Palestinian leadership are applying for full observer status at the UN. The Opposition support that application. Before the vote at the UN, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the matter in Government time?

On the Justice and Security Bill, we had suggested to the Government a sensible way forward that would have given judges greater discretion and accepted the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights while at the same time ensuring that intelligence sources were protected. We regret that the Government did not seek to work on a cross-party basis. Yesterday, on three separate occasions, they were defeated in the other place when our Liberal Democrat colleagues joined Labour and Cross-Bench peers to improve the Bill. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the roving Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), to make an urgent statement on how the Government will now proceed?

In business questions before the recess, I asked the Leader of the House about the forthcoming report by Lord Leveson. I said the House should have an opportunity to debate the report fully, and the Government should set out in advance the process for consideration of the inquiry’s recommendations. May I therefore thank the Leader of the House for announcing a general debate in Government time on the Leveson recommendations, which we now understand will be published next Thursday?

Does the Leader of the House agree that throughout this process we must remember to listen to the voices of the victims and their families, and also remember that this inquiry was the result of the gross intrusion they suffered at times of maximum distress? Will the Leader of the House therefore assure me that his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Education Secretary, will not seek to undermine Lord Leveson or his report?

Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement on the elections for police and crime commissioners, as his appearance at this week’s Deputy Prime Minister’s questions left none of us any the wiser? The House has heard from the Home Secretary, but if the Leader of the House is successful in coaxing the Deputy Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box we could ask the great strategist why he was so keen to hold these elections in November. So successful was this strategy for getting out the Liberal Democrat vote that the Liberal Democrats managed to win exactly none of the elections they chose to contest last Thursday.

It appears that the Liberal Democrats used the PCC elections to test out their brand new election strategy. In north Wales, the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats endorsed one Winston Roddick, saying that

“as an independent candidate, he is free from party political pressure”.

He was elected, but it was subsequently uncovered that Mr Roddick was, in fact, a member of the Liberal Democrats masquerading as an independent. May we have an urgent debate on this new Liberal Democrat election strategy to hoodwink people into voting for them?

Has the Leader of the House had a chance to look at the winners of The Spectator parliamentarian awards? Will he join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on his award—for apology of the year? I predict he will be up for it again next year. May I also congratulate the Government Chief Whip, who won the award for resurrection of the year? My only disappointment is that I did not win tipster of the year for predicting that in this House.

Does the Leader of the House think we should nominate Mr Roddick, the not-so-independent police and crime commissioner, for politician of the year, as he is the only Liberal Democrat to have found an election-winning strategy? The Education Secretary should be given a special award for News International politician of the year now that Louise Mensch is no longer a Member of the House. Will the Leader of the House suggest which Cabinet Minister we could nominate for omnishambles of the year, because Labour Members think any number of them would be worthy winners?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, particularly on the arrangements for a debate, provisionally set for Monday 3 December, on the Leveson inquiry. We now have a date for the publication of its report, and she asked further about that. The House will have heard what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. As the report will be published in just a few days, it is absolutely right that we should wait and see what Lord Leveson says in it, and very shortly thereafter the House will have an opportunity to express its views.

The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on that, and there were further questions at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House fully informed. The Prime Minister said yesterday what we made clear last year at the United Nations General Assembly: that it would not be helpful for the question of observer status for the Palestinian people to be brought to a vote. None the less, if that question is brought to a vote, the Foreign Secretary will, of course, want to tell the House about our judgment on it.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the progress of the Justice and Security Bill in another place. I and my colleagues will make it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place how we propose to respond to the progress of the Bill. We will look carefully at the votes and think carefully about them, but there is an important principle, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio and others have made clear: that in cases before civil courts the judge should have access to all the evidence. That is also a principle of justice that it is important to seek to maintain.

I am very tempted to have a debate on police and crime commissioners, not least because it would allow us an opportunity to set out clearly how, under this coalition Government, crime across the country is falling. Police and crime commissioners will be democratically elected and democratically accountable to enable us not only to sustain that reduction in crime, but to translate the priorities of the people directly into the priorities of policing in their areas. I do not understand why Labour Members now want a debate about this. The Labour party did not seem to be able to work out whether it wanted to debate it, deny it, support it, oppose it, say it was the wrong thing to do and then stand candidates for it. A debate would give us the opportunity to debate the position not of the current Deputy Prime Minister, but of the former Deputy Prime Minister.

I was interested in what the hon. Lady said about Mr Winston Roddick as the police and crime commissioner elected in north Wales. As it happened, my wife met him in Menai Bridge during the fair. He came up to her and asked, “Do you know anything about the police and crime commissioner elections?” She said, “As it happens, I do.” Curiously—I have checked with her— Mr Winston Roddick did not disclose any party affiliation whatever. So there we have it.

I share with the House our admiration for many of those who were the recipients of awards from The Spectator last night, but especially so for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who is an inspiration to all of us.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate a motion next week setting up a Committee of MPs who could educate the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about the work of the House? Did my right hon. Friend hear the admission by that gentleman on this morning’s “Today” programme that although he understood a lot about what MPs do in their constituencies, he was totally ignorant about what they did in the House, other than, as he put it, attend a zoo for one hour every Wednesday? In the light of that amazing demonstration of his ignorance, if he is to continue in his post is it not essential that he gets educated properly?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know from the statement that I made about forthcoming business that my expectation is that in the week after next we will be able to debate the appointment of Members to the board of IPSA—not the chair of the board of IPSA, whose tenure continues. In my conversations with Ian Kennedy he has made it clear to me that one of the things that he regards as most important is that there is a better understanding of the work of Members of Parliament. I will further encourage him in that process.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Could we find time for a debate on policing in London, specifically the proposal announced by the Met for a major programme of closures and downgrading of police stations across the city? May we have an opportunity during that debate to discuss the fact that police stations are already closing in advance of that consultation, including Marylebone and St John’s Wood in the London borough of Westminster? It is not acceptable for our constituents to face the loss and downgrading of police stations with no opportunity for anyone in Parliament to discuss that matter

[Mr Lansley]

It is not that there is no opportunity for such discussion. I recall that during the previous Business questions the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised issues relating to fire and rescue service stations across London and was subsequently able to secure a debate on that subject. It is primarily a matter for the Mayor of London as the commissioner of policing in London and for the London Assembly, but we here and those representing London here should have an opportunity to secure a debate.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) is attending a conference this morning and so is unable to be here, but I share her concern about what happened yesterday when a ship carrying live animals sailed from the port of Ramsgate in her constituency in appalling weather. The ship should never have been allowed to sail at all. It went halfway across the channel, turned back and had to unload the animals, which were then transported a long way across the country in absolute misery. This is absolutely intolerable, and it is done in the name of free trade. It is not a matter for an Adjournment debate. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and make a statement to explain what we propose to do to stop this in future?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not aware of those circumstances, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making me and the House aware of them. I will of course raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and invite him not only to respond to my hon. Friend but to consider what form of statement it might be appropriate to make.

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

I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Paula Dunn on her appointment as the Paralympics head coach of UK Athletics. She is the first woman ever to have held that role. In relation to supporting what she and other coaches might do, we had questions earlier today on the legacy of the Olympics for women in sport and the legacy of the Paralympics for disabled people, but no clear answers from Ministers, so may we have a debate in Government time on exactly what is happening and going to happen as regards the action needed to address those important legacy issues?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I think that Members of the House will share with her a sense of the real potential that the Olympics and the Paralympics gave for a legacy that is vital not only in respect of development in sport but of social change and understanding of the position of disabled people in society. It is almost difficult to talk about people being disabled when the thing that came most to the fore when watching the Paralympics was that we all have very different abilities. The Paralympics seemed largely to consist of people whose abilities were far in excess of mine and those of us who think of ourselves as not disabled. In truth, we all have very different abilities, and that very much came to the forefront; I thought it was very persuasive. The House is considering Olympic legacy issues through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I will talk to my colleagues about how we might find an opportunity to discuss and debate those issues, but it might also be considered by the Backbench Business Committee.

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

I have given the Leader of the House notice of my question, which is to do with my constituent, Katie Lock. Katie applied to work at the Olympics and got all the way through the training for the company, but her application was turned down by the Home Office. The Home Office has been singularly unhelpful at all stages in finding out why this young girl’s application was turned down. May we have time to discuss this, because I am sure that she cannot be the only person to whom this has happened?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who did indeed raise this with me. I will ensure that he gets as full and complete a reply as I can secure for him from the Home Office as soon as I can.

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

The House will remember the triumph of the Olympics. The only slight blemish was the security company G4S, which got into serious trouble and could not deliver the security that we expected. We were saved by our great troops, who stepped into the breach. Is the Leader of the House aware that G4S is now trying to ameliorate its financial position as regards the Olympics by failing to pay its supply chain and sub-contractors? Is not that a disgrace given that many of those sub-contractors performed absolutely to their contracts?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I freely confess I was unaware of, although it may have been evident to the Home Affairs Committee consequent on its inquiries. From the House’s point of view, one of the routes to inquire into what happened in relation to G4S is through that Committee.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that we could debate the priorities of the Environment Agency’s maintenance programme, particularly in Somerset, where there has been catastrophic flooding over the summer and throughout this autumn, including yesterday and today? Water is lying in the fields for weeks, and that increases its toxicity so that it eventually kills off the fish, birds and other wildlife when it is released into the rivers; it is unable to be drained away or pumped from those hundreds of acres of agricultural land. Is it not time to rebalance these priorities and look at the value of wildlife over food and farming?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important to recognise that the Government have put in place partnership funding arrangements with local authorities that are contributing to substantial enabling schemes to deter flooding. We expect to exceed our objective of 145,000 households being better protected by March 2015. In addition, I will talk to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because it is important not only that we have adequate flood protection, but that the means by which we provide it are environmentally sensitive. In the wake of the flooding in my constituency in 2001, we were able to recreate some floodplains, which was an environmentally responsible way to provide flood protection.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Given the Government’s 20% cut to policing, which has necessitated a cut in the number of front-line police officers of 15,000 nationally and 100 in Croydon, may I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for an urgent debate on policing in London so that voters have the unequivocal facts before they go to the polls next week?

[Mr Lansley]

I encourage the hon. Lady to look in the Official Report at the questions that the Home Secretary answered last Monday, because I do not recognise her figures on the number of front-line police officers. Indeed, the proportion of officers on the front line is increasing, as is their effectiveness, as we can see from the further reduction in crime across the country that was reported recently. The first thing we should do is express our appreciation of the effectiveness with which police forces across the country are addressing the necessity of managing within reduced budgets. We should support police and crime commissioners in taking that forward and in responding to local priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 686 on compensation for Zimbabwean farmers who had their land stolen by Mugabe?

[That this House calls on the World Bank and the Zimbabwe government to respect the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) court ruling in April 2009 that granted compensation of EUR22.5 million to Zimbabwean and European farmers, including Timolene Tibbett, who were illegally and often brutally thrown off their land during the Mugabe land reform in 2000 and 2001; believes that settlement of this claim will demonstrate a commitment to international law from the coalition Zimbabwe government and build confidence with international investors that arbitration ruling for investments, no matter how small or large, will be respected to created jobs and opportunities in Zimbabwe; and cautions the World Bank against adopting the incoherent position of progressing with a debt write-off programme with the Zimbabwe government whilst not ensuring the Zimbabwe government honours the legal commitments arrived at via proceedings of the ICSID, which is a World Bank court.]

May we have a debate on Zimbabwe to ensure that we get justice and compensation for farmers, including my constituent, Timolene Tibbett?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that, like me, the House will have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. I hope that we can find an opportunity for such a debate. To accelerate the process, it might be advisable for him and others to seek time to discuss the issue on the Adjournment.

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

Given the Government’s promise to review the way in which the work capability test is carried out, may we have a statement on their progress, because to many Members it seems that nothing is improving?

[Mr Lansley]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a written ministerial statement yesterday on the further report by Professor Harrington, which has enabled us to make considerable progress in improving the work capability assessment.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I return to flooding, which adversely affected my Tewkesbury constituency yesterday? Given that further heavy rainfall is predicted for tonight, will the Leader of the House alert the relevant Departments that they may need to make a statement or respond to an urgent question on Monday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Many of us have experienced flooding, to varying degrees, in our constituencies. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency has experienced serious flooding in the past and is at risk now. It is important that we keep the House fully informed—my hon. Friend will make sure that we do—about the steps that the Government can take, through both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government in supporting local authorities. I know that I do not need to encourage those Departments to keep the House and Members fully informed.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate or statement on the devastating report that was published this morning by the chief inspector of the borders and immigration service? It revealed that in Liverpool there are 100,000 letters from Members of Parliament and the public that have not been opened. When may we have a debate on that important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

The UK Border Agency chief executive will have written to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to address some of the issues raised by the report and make clear that UKBA has accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations. The chief inspector was clear that UKBA is now tackling those problems—and has been since April 2012—although I would not diminish the scale of the legacy problems it inherited and some of the difficulties and errors that have occurred. My colleagues in the Home Office are determined to ensure that UKBA not only deals with those legacy issues, but that it continues to improve the service it provides, and they will report on that to the House.

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

May I press the Leader of the House on the present crisis in the middle east and urge him to reconsider and try to find time for an urgent debate so that the House can make clear its views?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware, not least from the statement I have just made, of the many pressing issues that the House has to consider. There are opportunities through the Backbench Business Committee for Members to pursue those issues, which may—and often have—extend to international affairs.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement or debate on the privatisation of Greater Manchester ambulance service? As he may know, the contract to run part of this important service was recently awarded to Arriva—yes, that is the bus and train company—despite the NHS bid winning on quality and service. Arriva was given the contract on cost alone. Patients and carers across Greater Manchester are rightly worried that the quality of their service will suffer as a result, and that they have been consigned to a poorer quality service than the rest of the north-west region.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will wish to welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Decisions on contracts of that kind are made locally within the national health service, not centrally by the Secretary of State, but I will ask my ministerial friends in the Department of Health to write to her with details on that case. My recollection is that the tender is often for patient transport services, rather than emergency responses, and one should be careful to distinguish between those two things. There are examples elsewhere in the country of where patient transport services are not administered by the local ambulance service trust but a good service is maintained none the less.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

My constituent, Vaughan Williams, served on the arctic convoys during the second world war—a journey that Winston Churchill described as the worst in the entire world. Foreign Office rules prevent Mr Williams from receiving the medal he was awarded by the Russian Government, who recognised that he had risked his life to fight Nazism. May we have a debate on the bravery of those who served on the arctic convoys, and on the inappropriateness of rules that prevent full recognition of such bravery?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend may seek to secure such a debate on the Adjournment of the House or through the Backbench Business Committee, and judging from the response in the House he may be supported in that. I recall—as no doubt he does—that at Prime Minister’s questions a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister made it clear that he will look personally at the question of a service medal relating to the arctic convoys.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of intense media speculation in recent days that the UK Government will not get any EU funding for carbon capture and storage in the current round because they have failed to provide funding guarantees? So far, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has refused to deny those rumours, which are causing great uncertainty and sending mixed messages on the UK Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage. May we therefore have a statement from the Department at the earliest opportunity?

[Mr Lansley]

My colleagues at the Department have made it clear that, among other commitments, they will make an annual energy statement at some point this year. I will raise that issue with them, but they are aware of it—the Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage has been made very clear on a number of occasions.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Last week, I visited a school in Tamworth, where a 16-year-old history student asked, “Who is Napoleon?” They had also not heard of the Duke of Wellington. May we therefore have a debate on extending rigour in education, particularly in the teaching of history—history student numbers fell by 1.2% in 2011—so that future generations of history students know our history and chronology, and that the Duke of Wellington was a soldier and statesman, and not a public house?

[Mr Lansley]

The Duke of Wellington in Bourn in my constituency is well known for that purpose. My hon. Friend makes a good, important point well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Education is among those at the vanguard of believing that an understanding of history, and of the narratives that form an essential part of it, is an essential part of our understanding of who we are and where we come from, and what kind of people we are and what we can achieve. From that point of view, I am sure the Secretary of State shares my hon. Friend’s view—as will Members on both sides of the House—that we must ensure we achieve such understanding of the history of this country in schools.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the situation that arose in north Wales, where a Liberal Democrat pretended to be an independent? There is evidence that that has happened in still higher-status positions than police and crime commissioner—in the Deputy Prime Minister, we have a Tory pretending to be a Liberal Democrat.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot speak from personal experience of Mr Winston Roddick in north Wales, but I referred to the matter earlier in response to the shadow Leader of the House. To that extent, I have some knowledge of it.

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

May we have an early debate on crime prevention, so that police forces around the country can learn from the excellent Hands Off project, created by Bedfordshire police, in which owners’ property is marked by their DNA? That has been used successfully and enthusiastically in schools, and has great potential to cut crime.

[Mr Lansley]

That sounds like an intriguing, if slightly alarming, mechanism. I had heard of highlighter pens, but not of DNA marking. Members and police services might be interested in that. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that that illustrates the importance of innovation and new technology as essential parts of the process of fighting crime. I hope police and crime commissioners will demonstrate not only their responsiveness to public views, but their ability to embrace innovation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Halton is the 27th most deprived borough in England and Wales, and has high unemployment. I was therefore shocked to receive a letter last week from the permanent secretary at the Department for Education informing me that it was shutting its Runcorn site, with the loss of 220 jobs. The letter states that a report would be available on the website, but it was not. Only through the good work of the permanent secretary’s office did I manage eventually to find the report, but it left more questions unanswered than answered. May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? Does he agree that the Department should brief MPs in detail on the reasons for decisions of that magnitude, so that we can ask questions? Will he use his influence and ask his colleagues in the Department to ensure that the meeting I have requested happens sooner rather than later?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education whether they can meet the hon. Gentleman as he has requested. I do not know the circumstances, but I judge from what he says that the Department’s intention, through the permanent secretary, was to inform him of the decision. I will check how that was achieved to ensure that he and Members get notification of announcements affecting their constituencies in future.

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

May we have a debate on yesterday’s report on sexual grooming by gangs?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will have been shocked, as my hon. Friend no doubt was, by the report. The House, through the Backbench Business Committee, was able to debate child sexual exploitation last week. The issue has been debated, but we must press forward, and my colleagues are doing so with the tackling child sexual exploitation action plan and other measures. The interim report made a number of recommendations that we must pursue. We must also look at the recommendations from phase 2 next year, but be ready now to take all the action we can, as illustrated by my hon. Friends’ response to last week’s debate.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), during a statement earlier this week, called for a full debate in Government time on the situation in the middle east. The response of the Leader of the House today was as incoherent on the issue as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were in trying to justify not supporting Palestinian statehood. This is a serious situation with a fragile ceasefire, the threat of a ground attack and 160 dead. May we have a debate as soon as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

We will of course consider that. I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and he was clear in encouraging us to consider having a debate on the middle east. I have not been able to find time now, but it is open to hon. Members to seek such a debate using the time available to the Backbench Business Committee. Likewise, it is open to the Opposition, which has time for a debate next week should they wish to use it for that purpose. I think what I said was simply a reflection of what has been said many times by the Government and was repeated by the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday: what we want to do is secure the best possible progress in negotiations and use the ceasefire to make progress quickly. His response illustrated that urgency and the Government’s view that precipitating a vote at the United Nations was not necessarily the best way of making progress.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on community first responders, in particular on maintaining and improving training capacity? They do such a lot to ensure that people in rural areas are looked after when ambulance response times are often so slow.

[Mr Lansley]

I share completely my hon. Friend’s support for and appreciation of community first responders. Ambulance service trusts across the country have achieved the most consistent performance to date in responding to category A calls. However, while they meet the overall targets well, we know that response time is variable and particularly difficult in rural areas. Those of us who represent more rural areas appreciate how community first responders can make an important, additional contribution.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the ever-increasing price of gas and electricity, and the obscene profits posted by the organisations who provide those utilities? Mr John Bisset, who is a community activist in my constituency, said that when he goes to the post office each week many elderly people approach him and say that they are unsure of the Government’s position, following the Prime Minister’s recent statements. I hope that such a debate will allow us to clarify that position.

[Mr Lansley]

I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will therefore have been appreciative and attentive when the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave evidence to the Select Committee. He made it clear that—as the Prime Minister and Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, and as I repeated at previous business questions—we will ensure that people have access to the best possible tariffs. That is exactly what the Secretary of State has now made clear we will do, and further announcements will be made shortly.

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

We were all inspired by the success of our sporting heroes this summer. The challenge now is to get ordinary people involved in local sports, so can we have a debate about grass-roots community sport and the vital work of our county sports partnerships? Will the right hon. Gentleman also commend West Yorkshire Sport in my area for putting on the first Olympic legacy “Be Inspired, Get Involved” community sports fair next Wednesday at Lawnswood school?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I very much appreciate that. In my experience, sports partnerships have made tremendous strides in enabling competitive sport to prosper in schools around the country and have not limited but encouraged wider participation in sport among young people. That is why, as Secretary of State for Health, I provided additional financial support to organisers of sports partnerships. I share my hon. Friend’s view. We have discussed this point previously at business questions, and I hope that initiatives will emerge that enable us to debate the sporting legacy and the future of sport in this country, given the tremendous opportunity we have following the Olympics and Paralympics.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister today rejected my request in a parliamentary question that we ensure that independents standing for election declare any political party membership at the time of their nomination. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about Winston Roddick in my area of north Wales and given the sympathy I sense the Leader of the House has with this issue, may we have an early debate on transparency of independents at local, national and regional elections?

[Mr Lansley]

Those issues are governed by statute, and an opportunity to discuss them might arise in a debate on electoral registration and administration in due course.

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

Harrogate high school is receiving funding for a complete rebuild from the priority school building programme. May we have a debate on capital investment in schools, particularly considering that the current scheme is achieving better value for taxpayers than previous schemes and that capital is being used to provide the extra school places we need?

[Mr Lansley]

I would be delighted if that opportunity were to arise, particularly given that secondary schools are now being built for £6 million less, on average, than under the Building Schools for the Future programme. I have seen evidence of that in my own constituency, where a new school is being built, as a free school, employing composite laminated timbers prefabricated in Yorkshire and Humberside.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the living wage, so that we can explore why councils such as Tory Croydon, which does not pay the living wage to its employees, charges a higher level of council tax than neighbouring Labour Lambeth, which does?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman might like to talk to his own Front-Bench team about whether they wish to discuss the matter, as Opposition time is available next Wednesday. He might like to press that case on them. I would be happy to debate the matter, however, because it would enable us to discuss not only our support for a living wage but the efficiency and value for money delivered by Conservative local authorities relative to Labour ones.

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

On 18 October, the House passed a motion calling on the Government to reverse their decision to disband the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. May we have a statement on when and how the Government propose to respond to that motion?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that Ministers responded not only at the time but at questions subsequently. The Army will continue to implement the changes announced on 5 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or Defence, and further uncertainty for serving Fusiliers would be unhelpful. We now need to support them through the battalion merger as they look to the future.

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

When will the Leader of the House schedule a debate about the misery that falling real wages are causing to the living standards of millions of people across our country? Is he aware that this morning the Office for National Statistics published data showing that wages rose by only 1.3%, on average, across the UK and by only 0.9% in Scotland, but that the inflation rate has been, on average, 3.1%? Is that not another example of the Government’s complete economic incompetence?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade his hon. Friends to have a debate on the economy next week, we will be happy to have that. We could explain how inflation has fallen, how unemployment is rising, how we have cut the deficit by a quarter, how we have spending under control and how we have low interest rates as a consequence of the confidence that people across the world have in the Government’s fiscal consolidation. I know that he and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) are interested in the level of the minimum wage and living wage. That and other issues, including equal marriage, will be debated by the Youth Parliament in the Chamber tomorrow. They might like to watch.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the House considers the order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998—a significant piece of constitutional legislation, giving the Scottish Parliament the power to conduct a referendum that has the ability to affect the entire constitutional position of the United Kingdom—it will do so on the Floor of the House and for a whole day?

[Mr Lansley]

I have not been able to announce that business yet, but I will fully take into account my hon. Friend’s views when we schedule it in future.

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

In July, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told me that there was to be an announcement about the new agreement between the insurance industry and the Government on flooding insurance. Some 500 of my constituents wrote to the new Secretary of State recently but have not had a response. With the inclement weather, flooding is obviously becoming more of an issue. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that statement is to be expected?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall the Secretary of State making it clear at questions recently that continuing progress was being made in those discussions, but that there were complex discussions to be had with the Association of British Insurers and others. I will of course discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that under the current circumstances people will be reassured if such a statement can be made, but clearly it is dependent on the outcome of negotiations.

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

In recent weeks it has become clear that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s work on the BBC “Newsnight” investigation into allegations of child abuse in north Wales was highly inaccurate and lacked even the most basic journalistic rigour. On Monday 12 November, I wrote to the bureau asking journalists there to detail any payments they had received from the BBC for that work and to return this licence fee payers’ money. As yet I have had no response. Can we have an urgent debate on whether an investigation should be carried out into whether any organisation profited from this shoddy work of journalism, which has caused distress to so many and so damaged the reputation of the BBC?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. Many colleagues will share his view about this. I can reassure him that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided no public funding to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Broadcasters are independent of Government, so whether they work with the bureau or any other organisation is a matter for them, but it is also incumbent on them to ensure that they maintain the tradition of strong investigative journalism—which we all appreciate and which is an essential part of public service and commercial broadcasting—in a way that maintains high standards. That is the balance—I think we will be debating this a lot in coming weeks—of achieving freedom and having a mechanism of scrutiny and accountability, which a free press and free broadcasters enable us to have, while maintaining high standards.

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

May we have a statement on why the Government have overspent by £1 billion on their misapplication of the academies programme, as outlined by the National Audit Office? Its report says:

“DfE was unprepared for the scale of the financial implications”

of this rapid expansion. Can such a statement indicate where budget cuts to children’s services, funding cuts to underperforming schools and funding cuts to 16 to 19-year-olds staying on in education have been made, and also provide an explanation to Department for Education staff in the Tees valley who have recently been sacked?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the National Audit Office report to which he referred, which also says that the rapid expansion of academies schools was a significant achievement, which it is. It will have important benefits, through the increased autonomy and accountability that it brings and by delivering improved standards for our children. That is an investment worth making. As for future debates, no doubt there will be an opportunity at questions or for the Liaison Committee to consider whether it wishes to follow up on that report.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the importance of the post office network, which in my constituency provides such an important public service? My constituents will welcome the fact that it recently won the new Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract and that over £1.3 billion is being invested in the network, so that we can finally say that the era of post office closures in this country is over.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. Hon. Members have often asked me about it, and I could quite properly say nothing about it that would be prejudicial to continuing contract negotiations. But now that the contract has been won, I am pleased to say that we can really celebrate the fact that the Post Office has won it. I think Members across the House will appreciate it, and as we made clear in the past, it allows us to ensure that the Post Office can not only secure business from Government, but maintain its offer of business in many communities across the country that were threatened under the last Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the Charity Commission in England, with a view to reviewing the Charities Act 2006 to ensure that previously accepted religious charities, such as the Plymouth Brethren, are not threatened with the removal of their charitable status?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I have had occasion to meet, by way of example, members of the Plymouth Brethren in my constituency, who have raised these issues with me, and I will of course discuss them with my colleagues.

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

Earlier this year, the all-party group on pharmacy published its report on the shortage of medicines from local pharmacies. The group had a meeting earlier this week with my noble Friend Earl Howe, the Health Minister responsible for pharmacy, to give us an update on the Department of Health’s progress, which was not as fulsome as I would have liked it to be. May we please have a debate on that important issue, so that my constituents can know where they stand on the future supply of the important medicines on which they depend?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware, because we discussed the subject when I was Secretary of State for Health, that the supply chain for medicines is very complicated, and that it can be a very small number of medicines that are in short supply at any given moment, sometimes for reasons outside anyone’s control. For example, recently there were fires in Italy, which led to the inability to access the right medicines at the right time; but in so far as it can be managed, the Department has been pursuing supply chain initiatives that are intended to enable that to happen. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department of Health. I know they will want to be as helpful as they possibly can be in showing how we can improve reassurance for patients about their access to medicines.

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

The currency or value of GCSEs has been undermined over the past 15 years or so. Atlantic college, based in my constituency, established the international baccalaureate some 50 years ago, and has maintained the rigour of that qualification. May we have a general debate on qualifications, to expose the failure over the past 15 years and to learn from other organisations how we can maintain rigour in our qualification system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think he might say to Atlantic college that if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the examination system in this country is increasingly going to imitate the initiative from those decades ago. I know from my constituency that those who have used the IB have thought it a very successful means of reassuring themselves about standards. I hope that the English baccalaureate, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education last September, will enable us to apply some of those principles successfully across the school system. As for a debate, I do not have immediate time available, but I know that the House would appreciate the opportunity to debate the subject as soon as we can.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I attended the Huddersfield Examiner business awards earlier this month, and saw at first hand all the wonderful, enterprising businesses going out there and making it happen, and I proudly wear the “Huddersfield Place to Make It” campaign badge, which celebrates manufacturing in Huddersfield and my Colne Valley constituency. May we have a debate on all the wonderful, enterprising businesses in our constituencies that are going out there creating jobs and creating wealth for our nation, in sharp contrast to the doom-mongering mithering from the Opposition Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

Huddersfield has a proud legacy of manufacturing and an inspiring future in it, too. The Government are setting out to ensure that we rebalance our economy. We understand that we are going to have to pay our way in the world in a global race, not least by reinvigorating the manufacturing heritage of this country with new technologies, first-class innovation and very high productivity. I know that Yorkshire and Humberside will be at the forefront of that. The regional growth fund projects have demonstrated how many good projects are coming forward. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend’s notice that, later today, the House will have a debate in Backbench Business Committee time to discuss the reinvigoration of manufacturing in this country.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 12 November—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on the Government response to Ash dieback, followed by a further debate on the cost of living. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Tuesday 13 November—A general debate on child sexual exploitation. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will rise for the November recess on Tuesday 13 November and return on Monday 19 November.

The business for the week commencing 19 November will include:

Monday 19 November—Second Reading of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 20 November—Second Reading of the HGV Road User Levy Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, followed by a general debate on autism. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 21 November—Opposition Day (10th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party.

Thursday 22 November—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a debate on a motion relating to life-saving skills in schools, followed by a general debate on industrial policy and UK manufacturing industries. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 26 November—Remaining stages of the Small Charitable Donations Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 29 November and 13 December will be:

Thursday 29 November—A debate on the Welsh Affairs Committee report on inward investment in Wales.

Thursday 13 December—A debate on the first joint report of the Committee on Arms Exports Controls.



I would also like to remind the House that the week commencing 19 November will be Parliament week. This is the second year of the initiative that works to build greater awareness and understanding of, and engagement with, parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. I would like to encourage all Members to engage with the programme. Of particular interest will be the annual debate of the UK Youth Parliament in this Chamber on Friday 23 November. I look forward to welcoming those taking part, and I am sure that many Members will take an interest in the proceedings.

[Ms Eagle]

I join the Leader of the House in looking forward to the visit of the Youth Parliament, which it will also be my pleasure to attend. I also thank him for his statement and, ahead of Remembrance day, pay tribute to all those who have died serving this country and those who are now serving. We owe them all a great debt of gratitude.

We welcome the statement by the Home Secretary this week about the inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse in north Wales. The victims of sexual abuse who have come forward have suffered terribly; they should be listened to and supported. There are now, however, 13 separate overlapping inquiries into the various allegations of sexual abuse of children and young people. As I have raised with the Leader of the House before, would it not be more appropriate for a single overarching inquiry to be established that could get at the truth? While we welcome the fact that the Home Secretary did not rule it out in her statement on Monday, surely the victims deserve some clarity, so will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary perhaps to look at this again and make a further statement?

Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) asked about the Leveson inquiry. The Deputy Prime Minister agreed that we should work on a cross-party basis, but meanwhile Conservative Cabinet Ministers have been publicly undermining the inquiry ahead of its publication. While some Ministers might want to, this report should not be quietly buried by the Government. Ministers must set out before publication the process for consideration of the report, and there is no need to wait until Lord Justice Leveson has reported to let us know about this process. There should be an opportunity for this House to debate the report in Government time, so may we have a statement from the Culture Secretary on the approach that the Government intend to take?

Is the Leader of the House able to update Members on when we are likely to consider the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill? Last week, in a panic, Government business managers in the House of Lords delayed the Bill; this week, they pulled it altogether from the not exactly packed legislative programme. The reason given by the Leader of the House of Lords was that there needed to be “conversations” at a senior level in government before the Bill could proceed. “Conversations” is one way of putting it; I heard it was a stand-up row at the highest level.

It has been suggested that the reason why the Government pulled the Bill is that Labour peers and our Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled an amendment to delay the implementation of new parliamentary boundaries. The Government are wasting millions of pounds on a partisan review of constituency boundaries when there is not a majority for it in this House. Voters, returning officers and all political parties need clarity about the boundaries on which the next election will be fought—and the sooner, the better. So may we have a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that the implementation of the new boundaries will not now go ahead before the next election?

While we all enjoyed the Deputy Prime Minister’s contribution yesterday—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]—the slot is actually Prime Minister’s Questions. Rather conveniently, the Prime Minister managed to avoid Prime Minister’s Questions again this week; he made it back in time for dinner with Mrs Merkel, but not for his appointment with this House. It is not just Prime Minister’s Questions that he has taken to avoiding. He has not held his monthly news conference since July—July 1911—[Laughter.] 2011. Now he has even banned journalists from flying on foreign trips with him. When the going gets tough, this Prime Minister stages his own version of “I’m the Prime Minister, Get me Out of Here!”

In the Prime Minister’s absence, and rather worryingly for him, the Mayor of London decided to sneak in and give the 1922 committee a pep talk—on loyalty. Whatever next? Perhaps they will invite the Deputy Prime Minister to talk to them about honouring manifesto commitments. Tory Back Benchers are at each other’s throats, the Government are divided and the Prime Minister has gone AWOL. Mr Speaker, the country really deserves better than this.

[Mr Lansley]

Let me join the shadow Leader of the House in saying that Members on both sides of the House will be with their constituents on Sunday morning at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, remembering those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country, including not only those who did so in the two world wars but, sadly, the many who continue to do so in conflicts on behalf of this country. I agree with her that we want to make very clear our remembrance of them.

The hon. Lady asked about an overarching inquiry in relation to the range of inquiries into the Jimmy Savile allegations, the north Wales care scandals and other such issues. The House will of course be able to debate the subject, not least on Tuesday by virtue of the debate nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. I can say on behalf of the Government that, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we do not rule out such an overarching inquiry, but it must be emphasised that this is not an issue of principle, but an issue of what works best in practice.

That range of inquiries will have the powers and the ability to investigate specifics. If we try to substitute an overarching inquiry, there is a danger that its scope, scale and timetable will impede our progress. Not only must the police investigations be the first priority, but we must consider very carefully how we can make the fastest possible progress on other inquiries.

The hon. Lady asked about Leveson. I must tell her that I will not be asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to come and make a statement about Leveson before it reports, because that does not strike me as remotely practical.

[Ms Eagle]

It is about process.

[Mr Lansley]

Let us put substance before process, shall we? Let us wait to find out what Lord Leveson has to say. There is no prospect of its being quietly buried, as the hon. Lady suggested. The Government will respond, and the House will have a chance to discuss Lord Leveson’s conclusions after they have been reported.

We seem to have adopted the curious new convention that the shadow Leader of the House can ask me about the business of not only this place but the other place. However, I have no intention of responding. How it manages its business is a matter for the other place; let us focus on the business here.

When the hon. Lady returned to the business here, it seemed that her principal preoccupation was trying to protect the deputy leader of the Labour party from the monstering that the Deputy Prime Minister gave her yesterday during Prime Minister’s Question Time. The deputy leader does not want to see that happen again. I think that it was a 6-0 victory for the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the business statement, I was able to announce the choices for the Opposition day debates on Monday. I am disappointed to note that, once again, the Opposition have not opted for a debate on employment at a time when there are so many positive aspects of overall employment to mark, and have instead proposed a debate on the cost of living. I must say, however, that I look forward to the opportunity for us to mark the fact that the cost of fuel would be 10p per litre higher if we had followed in government the plans for fuel duty that were set out by the Labour party; the fact that inflation has halved since September last year; the prospect of a freeze in council tax for a third year, cutting people’s bills; the fact that we have funds for lending that are now being taken up; and the fact that historically low interest rates are now available. A 1% increase in interest rates today would add £10 billion to family mortgage bills—£1,000 a year for a typical family. As far as I can see, a debate on the cost of living will only highlight the fact that the people of this country cannot afford a Labour Government again.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend Her Majesty’s Government on making history last week by ensuring that, for the first time ever, the flags of each and every one of our British overseas territories and Crown dependencies were flown in Parliament square. The loyal subjects of those territories will be delighted that that decision has finally been made, but will the Leader of the House request a Minister to look into the possibility that our territories and dependencies could lay a wreath at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday? So far, they have been denied the opportunity of doing so.

[Mr Lansley]

Of course I share my hon. Friend’s pleasure at the opportunity for us to show our continuing affection, respect and attachment to the people of the British overseas territories. I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she might respond to his question about Remembrance Sunday proceedings.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I was heavily involved with the child abuse cases in north Wales because several of my constituents were abused at that home. I took witness statements from four of them, and I cannot adequately describe the horror of what they described to me. It upset me greatly. I would welcome an overarching inquiry, because there have been so many small inquiries. There was the Waterhouse inquiry, and before that there was the Jillings inquiry. I ask that the Jillings report be published. I saw it at the time; I was not supposed to see it, but it was shown to me. It was subsequently pulped by the then Clwyd county council because it was afraid of the attitude of the insurers. I ask for the Jillings report to be published because it highlighted buggery, rape, bestiality, violent assaults and torture, and the effects on the young boys at that time cannot be overestimated. May I also say that I welcome next week’s debate?

[Mr Lansley]

I share the right hon. Lady’s sense of shock and outrage at what happened, and I know that the whole House does, too. These events took place many years ago, but in a sense that makes the situation even worse; there has not been any recognition of what took place even though so much time has passed. The victims have had to live with the consequences without a satisfactory resolution, and it is therefore all the more important that we take action now.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the action we will be taking, and we continue to consider how best to achieve a proper resolution. There are ongoing police investigations into the abuses in north Wales and, as my right hon. Friend said, judicial investigations into what happened in respect of the Waterhouse inquiry, but I will draw her attention to what the right hon. Lady has just said.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Hindu festival of Diwali is next week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Hindus, Sikhs and Jains across the world, and in particular in this country, a very happy Diwali, and may we have a debate on the wonderful contribution the Ugandan Asians have made to this country, and the wisdom of the Conservative Government in admitting them in 1972, when no one else would?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely share every sentiment my hon. Friend has expressed, including those about the tremendous contribution made by the Ugandan Asians. I know from my past responsibilities for the health service what a tremendous contribution they have made to medical services in this country, as well as, as we all know, the contribution they have made over many years in enterprise and business creation.

Festivals such as Diwali play an important role in helping us appreciate and celebrate the cultural diversity of this country. Diwali is a vibrant celebration of the victory of light over darkness, of good over evil, of knowledge over ignorance. It is a time for celebration and reflection about what we have achieved and our ambitions for the future, and I know that Members across the House will extend our best wishes to our constituents for the festival of Diwali.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Government listed that there would be a written ministerial statement today on the future of the Prison Service. They trailed that it would mark the start of the wholesale privatisation of the Prison Service, which would have enormous consequences for the large number of our constituents who work in prisons and for our communities in general. As of 10.30 am that written statement had not emerged, although it might well have done so by now. Will the Leader of the House explain what criteria were used to determine that that should be a written ministerial statement rather than a statement on the Floor of the House, given its enormous consequences for the administration of justice in this country, and if there is no ministerial statement in the future, may we have a debate on the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, check that that written ministerial statement has been laid, and I have no doubt that it will make clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House the nature of what it is announcing. If outstanding issues arise from its contents, the hon. Gentleman will note that he may have an opportunity to raise them with Justice Ministers, not least at their question session next Tuesday.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

A supplier can make an informed judgment as to whether it continues to provide goods to a company in difficulty, but most consumers are not similarly aware. May we have a debate on the merits of changing administration law to make those holding gift vouchers or savings preferred creditors?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. If I may, I will ask my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond on that, as they consider issues relating to consumer rights generally.

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

A very important debate on Scotland and the European Union had to be cancelled because the Member sponsoring it could not be bothered to turn up on time. What reprimand did that Member receive? Should there not at least be an apology given to those who had prepared speeches and bothered to turn up on time?

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess that I should have seen that that had happened; it is my fault that I was not aware of it, and I will certainly look into it. Of course, individual Members are responsible for their attendance at debates, particularly those they have sought, but I am sure that Members from across the House will regret it if debates to which they wish to contribute are available and other hon. Members fail to enable them to take place.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the situation in Parliament square? Despite the welcome clearing of the square, which made it available for the public and tourists during the Olympics and Paralympics. However, one small demonstration remains, which is trying to expand and is clearly breaking the law in using sleeping equipment at night and causing an obstruction. In addition, what is he proposing to do about the fact that the main gates of the House were closed at the 10 o’clock Division on Monday because of demonstrators who were firing fireworks into the Palace?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 prohibited the erection of tents and the use of sleeping equipment in Parliament square. The Act also enabled local authorities to attach the power of seizure and retention of property to byelaws. So the powers in the Act allow the police to remove tents and other sleeping equipment from the square. He also raises operational matters relating to the square and its impact on Parliament, which are of course a matter for the Metropolitan police force and its commissioner. To help my hon. Friend, I will ensure that the points he has made in this House are drawn to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s attention.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as a type 2 diabetic. Has the Leader of the House seen Tuesday’s report from the Public Accounts Committee, which estimates that 4.4 million people in the United Kingdom will have diabetes by 2020? I appreciate what he did as Health Secretary to raise awareness, but may we please have an urgent debate on preventing diabetes?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about what we are continuing to hope to achieve. I have seen the Public Accounts Committee report. It is important that we recognise that the prevalence of diabetes is rising and that it is important to tackle it. Prevention is, as the cliché goes, better than cure. In that respect, we are making more progress on health checks, which can make an enormous difference in ensuring that the proper management is in place. Although we know that there is significant variation across the country, there is a rising overall level of adherence across the country to the nine principal recommendations for the care and treatment of those with diabetes.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Tomorrow marks the international day of action for the Rohingya people in Burma. Will a Minister from the Department for International Development come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement explaining to the House how the UK Government intend to use their overseas aid programme to help these internally displaced people, given that the Government of Burma fail to recognise them as citizens of the country?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development did update the House on the situation in Burma in a written ministerial statement last week. Of course we are deeply concerned at the recent violence in Rakhine state in Burma. October saw an increase in communal violence between the de facto stateless, Muslim Rohingya and the majority, Buddhist, Rakhine communities. The United Kingdom is providing £2 million to enable emergency water, sanitation and health care provision to go to more than 58,000 people affected. We are pledging £3 million, subject to the results it will achieve, for short-term peacebuilding initiatives. We will do all we can to support and strengthen the wider peace process in Burma, but I will ask colleagues at the Foreign Office to ensure, as they have done, that the House is continually updated.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will there be a statement any time soon from the Police Minister to address the increasing problem of poor police morale? I regularly receive letters from constituents who are serving police officers complaining about the policies of this Government, the cuts to the police force and the attacks on their pensions and conditions, and morale is the lowest that I have seen it for some time.

[Mr Lansley]

With the police and crime commissioner elections coming up next Thursday, there is a great opportunity for us not only to raise the public’s sense of accountability in policing but morale among the police. The police can take pride in what they have achieved in reducing the levels of crime by 10%. That is the measure of what we ask of them and the measure against which they are performing. Additionally, by strengthening the engagement between police services and local communities, the police and crime commissioner elections offer a tremendous opportunity.

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

Next year, Zimbabwe will face a general election. May we have a debate on how the proceeds from the Marange diamonds are being used by ZANU-PF to intimidate Zimbabweans in the run-up to the general election?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), described in a Westminster Hall debate in July how we are approaching the issues relating to the militarisation of diamond finance. We are continuing to work with the non-governmental organisation Global Witness and other partners to consider the evidence prior to discussions with EU partners and, where appropriate, we will seek to retain or add names to the EU targeted measures list if there is a compelling legal justification to do so. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary further to update my hon. Friend.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am increasingly being contacted by constituents who are concerned about the impact the bedroom tax will have on their living standards when it comes into effect. That is further compounded by the shortage of one-bedroom accommodation for them to move to. May we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on how the Government intend to increase the supply of one-bedroom accommodation in the rented sector when the bedroom tax comes into effect?

[Mr Lansley]

I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman makes that point three days after he and his party voted against the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, which, among many other things, will enable more social and affordable housing to be built. For example, we will enable sites that are non-viable because of section 106 agreements to enter into new agreements so that that housing can be built. That is what we need to do, among other things, to create new and additional social housing.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Last month, construction work commenced on the brand new £9 million urgent care centre at Burnley general hospital that the Leader of the House, as Health Secretary, approved back in March. Work has also commenced on demolishing the derelict Kwik Save building in Colne, which will be the site for the new Colne health centre. May we have a debate on NHS funding and the investments made in the NHS by the Government, as opposed to the Labour party, which downgraded my accident and emergency department when it was in office?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, as ever. I absolutely agree and find it astonishing that the Labour party’s objective yesterday was to have a debate on regional pay in the NHS and completely to ignore all the ways in which the NHS is being supported by the Government and is achieving more as a consequence. As he says, there has been investment in Burnley in facilities for those with urgent care requirements, which were downgraded by the previous Government. That shows the commitment on our part. It is now clear that in the past year, we increased the NHS budget in real terms relative to the year before. Under Labour’s plans, it would have gone down and the shadow Secretary of State for Health told us that it would be totally irresponsible to increase the NHS budget in real terms. It is our responsibility, we are doing it and we will defend and support the NHS.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The West Midlands ambulance service has seen an increase of 210 calls a day for 999 emergencies, and refused to pick up a four-year-old constituent of mine who had suffered a head injury. It is now bringing in St John Ambulance to cover front-line services. May we have an urgent debate on why charities are propping up NHS front-line services?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that St John Ambulance, like some other ambulance services, has always worked with the NHS ambulance services. She should recall that the latest data published in the summer showed that, for the first time, all the ambulance services across England were meeting the recommended standards for responding to category A calls. There are always individual cases where things go wrong. I know that from my constituency and she will know it from hers, but if she would care to provide me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health with details, of course we will ensure that any individual case where things went wrong is investigated.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May we find time for a statement from the Home Secretary about visa applications for people from India coming to the United Kingdom, and in particular for religious workers? I am been approached by Tarsem Paul, the chair of the Ravidassia community in Bedford, with concerns that the process has become unduly bureaucratic.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will want to respond. We know that we must make sure that we respond sympathetically to religious communities such as the Ravidassia community and their needs to bring people, in this case from India, to this country. My hon. Friend will know that we have not made any changes to the routes for religious workers entering this country. Clearly, I cannot comment on the details of any individual case. Visa applications are considered on a case-by-case basis. We apply firm but fair rules, with the responsibility on the applicant to ensure that they meet the immigration rules. I will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration about whether he can help in any particular case.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Thousands of babies are still being born every year damaged by alcohol. It is becoming commonplace abroad to see a pregnant woman symbol on all alcoholic drinks containers. Will the Leader of the House intervene with his ministerial colleagues to bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency to provide for a pregnant woman symbol to be displayed on all drinks canisters?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my hon. Friends about that, as the hon. Gentleman asks. It is also important to improve the quality of the antenatal care, advice and support that is given to women in pregnancy, particularly those who may be more vulnerable and some of the youngest pregnant women. That is where, as I know from my direct experience, the expansion of our health visitor programme across the country is showing tremendous progress, with more health visitors who are devoting more time to providing more antenatal education and guidance.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am sure many Members of the House will be surprised to learn that one in six of the UK adult population are functionally illiterate. That figure rises to a staggering almost half of the UK prison population. Does the Leader of the House agree that, because this is a cross-departmental issue affecting so many areas of our life, we should have a chance to discuss it in the House?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend says, some Members may indeed be surprised to hear those figures. Others of us, I know, have been aware of the situation. She is right. It is important and it extends across a number of Departments. She will be aware of the importance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education attaches to ensuring that literacy standards are met in schools and the necessity of including additional remedial work for those who are not meeting those standards as they go through school. But we have a legacy of adult illiteracy and we have to tackle it. My hon. Friend, with colleagues across the House, might like to ask the Backbench Business Committee if it will find time to discuss such an important and wide-ranging issue.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following Department for Work and Pensions questions this week, Ministers clearly believe that getting work experience for 20 young people in my constituency is a success, when in fact almost 1,000 are looking for a job. May we have a debate about the shocking levels of youth unemployment in this country, in an attempt to drag the Government into the real world?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady should remember that it was her right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) who said frankly and correctly that youth unemployment in this country was rising from 2004. In the midst of a boom, youth unemployment was still rising. In the latest figures, we have seen some amelioration of those trends. The Youth Contract is about making sure that there are work experience places, apprenticeships places and special support for 16 to 19-year-olds who want to get into apprenticeships. As I have said many times, there will be opportunities, and I hope even she might encourage those on her Front Bench to make opportunities available to debate the progress that we are making on employment.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Home Secretary offering guidance on the appropriate action to take against a police officer who has been accused of using his position to intimidate and harass, a finding that has been recorded by a judge in a family law case? Are the police correct in taking no action as a result of the family court’s refusal to discuss the matter with them?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that serious issue. As he will know, police officers are expected to maintain the highest standards of professional behaviour. In addition to the criminal and civil law, they are subject to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, which set out the standards of professional behaviour they are expected to maintain. When they fail to meet those standards, they can face disciplinary action. Of course, decisions about disciplinary action are a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned or its police authority. If someone wants to make a complaint about a police officer, however it arises, they should contact the force concerned or its police authority or, if they fail to secure action that way, the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government no longer publish police numbers on a borough-by-borough basis, which makes it very difficult for Members to make like-for-like comparisons? May we have a statement from the Home Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friend to reply about that specific statistical point. Speaking from experience in my constituency, I know pretty much how many police there are on the streets, and in Cambridgeshire we are recruiting more police.

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

The Leader of the House might recall visiting Rowley Regis hospital with me before the general election. Since then, working with the local NHS trust and local commissioners, we have secured considerable new investment for a new in-patient re-ablement ward. May we have a debate on the value of local commissioning as a way of getting valuable services into community hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many Members across the House will value the fact that the new clinical commissioning groups, which have been developed to bring together largish groups of GP practices, are rooted in an understanding of how services can best be provided for patients, and often that is through accessible, community-based care, which reduces the demand on hospital services so that patients are admitted to hospital only when they need to be. We understand that in some cases people have to be in hospital, but we do not want them to be there if they do not need to be.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The Ministry of Defence has announced that 50 defence specialist jobs will be moved from Kentigern house in my constituency to Abbey Wood in Bristol, at an additional cost of £50,000 a year for the MOD. A leaked MOD value-for-money analysis states in its conclusions:

“The cheapest costed option in any of the comparable timescales is for UKNCB staff to remain in Glasgow… A simple comparison between the levels of benefits (Medium) and risks (High) provides the conclusion that the arguments weigh clearly in favour of the UKNCB remaining in Glasgow.”

May we have a statement on this important issue or, at the very least, an agreement that a Minister will meet the workers in Glasgow?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that, having not had notice of that question, I cannot comment specifically on it. I will of course ask my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence to respond directly to his questions. I will say, in that context, that over the past two and a half years this Government have resolved for the first time the £38 billion over-commitment––the black hole in the MOD’s future commitments––which we inherited from the previous Government.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Given that 750 teenagers currently travel out of my constituency to secure their post-16 education, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on free schools to recognise the fantastic opportunity taken by local parents, teachers and community leaders to set up a free school to meet provision in a better way for local children in Salisbury?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly draws attention to how the free schools programme is a major success, with 79 free schools already opened. They are popular with parents and pupils. In my constituency, a free school sponsored by one of the academy schools is extending provision in places where parents and pupils most want it. I understand that a group in my hon. Friend’s constituency will shortly make an application to open Salisbury sixth-form college in September 2014; it will focus on science, technology, engineering and maths and address a shortage of such provision in the area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will welcome that application and give it very careful consideration.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Regarding the Government’s agenda and legislative programme, the Leader of the House has given us another “spot the business” statement. In large part, this Chamber is again reduced to playing keepy-uppy. In that context, how does he think that we can credibly explain, at the Parliament Week events to which he referred, that this Chamber could not afford the time duly to consider the House of Lords Reform Bill, which won such an overwhelming vote on Second Reading?

[Mr Lansley]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that in my view his question is better directed towards Labour Members, who voted for the Bill on Second Reading and made it clear that this House was supportive of the principle of reform of the House of Lords, and then failed to vote to give it the time to be debated.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

May we have a debate on dementia? There are nearly 700,000 dementia sufferers in England, but sadly only half of them are diagnosed, and awareness of the condition is shockingly low. The Prime Minister has made this a personal priority and has today announced the dementia friends initiative whereby we will look to recruit 1 million people and train them to spot the signs of dementia early, as well as putting £10 million towards dementia research and £50 million towards making wards more comfortable for dementia sufferers. May we have a debate on this ailment, which is very serious for the nation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue of concern to all Members across this House. Back in March, when the Prime Minister launched the Prime Minister’s challenge, we set a number of very ambitious objectives for ourselves. It is great to see some of those coming through and further, very important measures being put in place. In the west midlands, some of the best work that I have seen is being done in making hospitals understand dementia, identify where patients have dementia, and then provide more appropriate care to look after them. Today’s initiative relating to 1 million volunteers across the country can be a tremendous boost in providing what are known as dementia-friendly communities that people with dementia find accessible and understanding, enabling them to derive the best possible quality of life from a very sad condition.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on the Rohingya community in Burma? A few weeks ago, we had a Westminster Hall debate on this to which many Members came along. Horrific sectarian violence has unfolded again in recent days. We would welcome a statement from the International Development Secretary to update us on what her Department is doing to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to that part of the world.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes an important point. Many Members across this House are very concerned about the situation in Burma. We care deeply about its people, not least because the visit of Aung San Suu Kyi gave us the opportunity to appreciate the prospects for peace and democracy there, which we do not want to be undermined. I will of course speak to my right hon. Friend to see whether she might find an opportunity to make a statement of some description to the House.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Residents in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the country are plagued with endless nuisance calls from people selling payment protection insurance and the like. The Telephone Preference Service is clearly almost entirely ineffective. Will the Government make a statement on what they intend to do about this and how they will overcome the obstacles to achieving a properly working blocking system?

[Mr Lansley]

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue before. I appreciate his continuing concern. In the light of the concerns that he and others have raised, the Minister for culture, communications and the creative industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), has met representatives from the Information Commissioner’s Office, Ofcom and the Telephone Preference Service to see what can be done to strengthen action in this area. I will, of course, ask him if he could update my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and, if appropriate, the House.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Ten years on from the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Members throughout the House continue to be concerned about the exploitation of leaseholders through unfair service charges and forfeiture. Will the Government look again at this area, and may we have a debate on it in Government time, so that they can take positive action on this serious issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I am aware of such issues and will, of course, talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether they can respond to him and perhaps update us more generally.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Over the past two months, 100% of the stroke care patients using the George Eliot hospital have spent 90% or more of their time on a dedicated stroke care ward, which, as my right hon. Friend will know, far exceeds the national target. Will he join me in welcoming the progress that the George Eliot hospital is making in this regard, and may we have a debate on the importance of high-quality stroke care?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is a man after my own heart. I was chairman of the all-party group on stroke for about seven years before the last election. One of the things that we identified that makes a big difference to stroke outcomes is when stroke patients are admitted to a specialist stroke ward. I am happy to congratulate those at the George Eliot hospital on what they are doing. They are part of a general, substantial increase in the latest data on the proportion of patients who are looked after in that multidisciplinary context.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The flawed business model of some private car park operators aims to catch out motorists. Over two years, we have seen an eye-watering 63% surge in requests for drivers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. May we have a debate on how best to protect the motorist and lift the veil on such predatory practices?

[Mr Lansley]

From memory, this is the Government who implemented the ban on wheel-clamping, which has given motorists protection against some of the worst excesses, but I will, of course, talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport about what more we can do to give motorists a sense of proper security, rather than exposure to abuses.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May we have a debate about the procurement of new public buildings? According to the National Audit Office, more than 50% of public buildings are delivered late and cost more than is budgeted. Earlier this week I had the great pleasure of opening a new building at Oakfield primary school in my constituency. It was built using a new Sunesis design solution and was completed at 30% less cost and delivered many weeks earlier than a conventional building. Does the Leader of the House agree that that approach contrasts with the previous Government’s expensive and wasteful Building Schools for the Future project?

[Mr Lansley]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on building the Oakfield primary school—that is really good news—and he is absolutely right that it provides a contrast. We are already procuring schools at 28% less cost than that achieved by the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future project. As a result of the priority school building programme, we are now targeting spending where there is greatest need, and secondary schools built using the new designs are saving up to £6 million per school compared with the BSF equivalents.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Government have put their proposed legislation for recalling MPs on the back burner. Will they bring it forward so that members of the public can hold to account those MPs who ignore their constituents and go on reality shows in Australia?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government have not put the legislation on the back burner. We responded to the Procedure Committee, which made significant and substantial comments that were not supportive of the proposals that were before it. We will continue to consider what progress is appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of our adhering to our parliamentary responsibilities, not only by being in this House, but by meeting them elsewhere. He will no doubt be considering the position of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), given the relatively few occasions on which he attends this House on behalf of his constituents. For our part, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and his colleagues have taken the action that they should have taken in relation to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). I am clear that if a Member wishes to engage people in Parliament and convey to them a sense of its relevance, the place to do it is here, not in Australia.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 699?

[That this House notes newspaper reports on the auction of the 4G spectrum, which suggest that it could raise around 2 billion to 3 billion in 2013; further notes that this would be enough revenue to scrap the previous administration’s 3p January petrol tax twice over; and therefore calls on the Government to continue its historic freeze in fuel duty, to continue to be the motorist’s friend and to stop the planned 3p fuel duty rise in January 2013.]

Will he find time for a statement on the auction of the 4G spectrum? Newspapers have reported that the spectrum auction could raise £2 billion to £3 billion next year, which is enough revenue to scrap Labour’s petrol tax rise in January twice over.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the action that we are taking to ensure that mobile phone operators can meet the rapidly growing demand for mobile internet access and introduce next generation mobile services. That is essential for economic growth and will bring an estimated benefit of £2 billion to £3 billion to the UK economy. My colleagues have instructed Ofcom to auction more spectrum to ensure that we meet the growing demand. The Government are working to ensure that we have the digital infrastructure that businesses need.

My hon. Friend will know that any resources raised for the Exchequer by the auction are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will note that the autumn statement is on 5 December.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Metal theft has damaged businesses and the theft of manhole covers has put lives at risk in my Stockton North constituency. Does the Leader of the House agree that metal theft is a serious problem across the UK and that the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, which is due to be debated this Friday, will be an important measure in tackling it? Will he give a commitment that should Government Back Benchers obstruct the Bill, he will provide Government time to allow this important measure to come into law?

[Mr Lansley]

Tomorrow is the opportunity for Members to be here to take the Bill forward and I look forward to their doing so. It will be an important step in dealing with a crime that has disturbed many of us in our constituencies, not least—looking towards Remembrance Sunday—through the theft of metal on war memorials.

If I may correct something that I said a moment ago, I talked about the view of the Procedure Committee on recall, but it was the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that made the recommendations and comments to which the Government responded.

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

Please may we have a debate about access to health care? Such a debate would allow us to explore the impact of new treatments that are becoming available, such as those for cancer; what is happening to waiting lists; what is happening in community care; and increasing access among black and minority ethnic communities.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Quality and access are at the heart of what patients are looking for from the NHS. Happily, there has been considerable progress on both quality and access under this Government. It is interesting to note the latest figures. The number of patients waiting beyond 18 weeks for treatment was 209,411 at the time of the last election. That has been reduced to 144,650. The number of patients waiting for more than a year for treatment was 18,458 at the time of the last election. That has been reduced to 2,052.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on participation in higher education, which has fallen by up to 30% in parts of my region? The Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report this week which shows that the gap in participation in higher education between the richest and the poorest students narrowed under the previous Government. We are in danger of losing those gains significantly.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have to forgive me, but I was not here for the whole of Business, Innovation and Skills questions, when she may have had the opportunity to raise that issue with Ministers in the Department. In any case, we are looking for participation in higher education to be supported. The changes in higher education are focused on delivering the best quality teaching and the best quality research.

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

Last week, Lord Heseltine published his long-awaited report, which contained recommendations that could potentially boost our economy. The report was particularly clear that businesses need long-term strategic direction that could, and should, be provided in a cross-party manner. Given the importance of the issue, will the Leader of the House set aside Government time for that important debate?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Lord Heseltine presented a significant, helpful report that we very much welcome. Not only does it say that we are on the right track, but it enables us to make more progress more quickly in stimulating and delivering growth. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Backbench Business Committee has tabled a general debate for Thursday 22 November on industrial policy and UK manufacturing industries, which will afford a welcome opportunity to take forward some of the issues raised by Lord Heseltine.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the indignity of mixed-sex accommodation in hospitals? A report last month from the Department of Health highlighted that instances of mixed-sex accommodation have fallen by 98%, from 12,000 to fewer than 200, following measures taken by the Leader of the House when he was Secretary of State for Health. Such a debate would also allow us to highlight a decade of broken promises on that issue from the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point very well. Five or six years ago, when I was shadow Health Secretary, Labour Health Ministers regularly claimed to have eliminated mixed-sex wards, although they did no such thing. As my hon. Friend said, when we first measured the situation about 12,000 patients a month were being admitted to mixed-sex accommodation, and that should not have been happening. We have demonstrably changed that situation, and through reducing such cases by 98% have made a great improvement to the care and dignity of patients.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The Liverpool care pathway is a crucial part of palliative care in our country although it has recently received negative media coverage. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange an opportunity for hon. Members, either in response to a statement or in a debate, to discuss the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Liverpool care pathway, which is such an important part of end-of-life care?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend expresses his point well. In many thousands of cases, the Liverpool care pathway has enabled the right care for people at the end of life. We must look at the patient experience—as the national end-of-life care programme is doing with Dying Matters and the Association for Palliative Medicine—and where patients are complaining, we must understand what that tells us. In particular, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear, the right treatment is not the only issue and we must ensure that patients and their families understand what treatment has been provided and why, and give it their informed consent.

House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I do so on behalf of the Government to make clear our support for the work the House is doing to ensure it meets the necessary savings in the broader context. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and the shadow Leader of the House made that clear, too, recognising the need for financial savings right across the public services. As Leader of the House and on behalf of the Government, I also want to reflect on how the House can best achieve those savings.

I would like to say a few words of thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, not least for scheduling this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on securing it and on the manner in which he introduced it and, as others have said, guided so well the discussion and work to this point. The way in which the Backbench Business Committee has opened up debates in this House has been positive, enabling us, as in this debate, to have a similar impact on House administration. It is not only for us, but for members of the House service and the public more generally, to see how this House is managed and administered in order to deliver something that is not only effective but value for money.

We welcome the level of savings entered into by the House of Commons Commission. Clearly, 17% reductions by 2014-15 relative to 2010-11 are broadly in line with savings across the 2010 spending review, which identified that, other than for protected areas of expenditure, departmental budgets would on average decrease by 19% over four years.

It is important to recognise that this is not the beginning of the process; it is the next stage of it. The House of Commons Administration has already made considerable progress in achieving savings, as Members have said, through voluntary exits, discontinuing printing of documents and improving contract management. We can now see examples of how, as the Commission agreed at the outset, savings should be achieved through detailed analysis of services, and delivered to arrive at something better, not just cheaper. From the Finance and Services Committee report we can see the emergence of more such opportunities, not least if we look at the ICT strategy in the table on page 15. There is clear evidence of how that might make a considerable difference, not just on print to web, but as the Committee’s Chairman said, in relation to such things as cloud computing. That can make a big difference not only in how we access our responsibilities more effectively but by enabling us to rethink the way in which the physical estate is managed in order that we may deliver our responsibilities.

Innovation has to come, too, in respect of visitors to this building, their access and facilities. The Administration Committee set out how to achieve that in its first report of this Session. It was a very good basis on which to proceed. It is not the subject of the report before us, but the income generation associated with it is an integral part of the process of achieving the medium-term financial plan.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Many Members have illustrated that the risks and concerns that he raised would not be valid on the basis of the way in which the Administration Committee is proceeding. I say gently to my hon. Friend that he underestimates the importance to all of us, and to our constituents, of opportunities for access. We can provide access individually as Members, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has so famously done, but I meet so many constituents who have visited this place without my knowing they had done so. It matters to them that they can access their Houses of Parliament, because so much of their history is here. That is true not just for the people of this country, but for those of many other countries around the world.

I particularly echo the point rightly made by the shadow Leader of the House that as we develop visitor access and facilities, it allows us to boost the opportunities for educational access. Progress has been made, but we all know we want to do more. If we could one day be confident that we could arrive at a position whereby at one point in their educational experience, every young person in this country had had access to their Houses of Parliament on at least one occasion, it would be a dramatic thing to have achieved. We are, however, an order of magnitude away from where we need to be to make that happen.

The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) raised major issues about the repair and renewal of the House. Part of what we are doing in the medium-term financial plan and in achieving savings will help us better to understand what the shape of repair and renewal for the future will look like. Today and for the foreseeable future, however, we are not yet in a position to make decisions about any of those options, other than to have made clear—for this House and the other place—that we do not want the building of a new Houses of Parliament somewhere else, separate from this place. Much more work needs to be done on the question of how we can sustain this House in the long term before we can look at the options ahead of us.

[Mr Winnick]

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am certainly not in favour of another House of Commons. I want this place to be renewed, so it can be a working place for a long time to come. For that work to be done, however, it seems to me that some evacuation will have to occur.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. There are options ahead of us, one of which would entail such a “decant”, as it has been called; the other of which would not. We have a great deal of work to do before we know which of them is the best option for this House to meet its responsibilities and for value-for-money purposes.

It has already been demonstrated that House staff are able to deliver excellent service in challenging times, and that their participation in the savings programme has been instrumental. It is axiomatic in any walk of life that if we want to deliver the best possible service, the people who are best equipped to do it are the people working in that service at the front line: they understand it; they can bring forward some of the best ideas for making it happen. The medium-term financial plan is about showing how the business improvement plans— my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) further illustrated them—can achieve that. We should engage the staff fully, listen to them, and work with them. This is not about Members, intimate though we are with how the House works, deciding everything. It is about our working with the staff in challenging times, and recognising that we can achieve not just financial savings but a re-engineering—to use that unfortunate term—of the way in which we do our business.

I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) that staff in the Committee services and others will need to take a positive and constructive approach to new technologies and new ways of working. I think that many of them are already doing that, and that they will all make a great contribution in the future.

Let me finally say, on behalf of all of us on the House of Commons Commission, that this debate has been immensely helpful in enabling us to understand what response we should make to the Finance and Services Committee, and that we will take full account of all the points that have been raised. I find myself thinking of that famous remark by Sir Winston Churchill:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]

It is tempting to think that very little should change in a building of this character, but change is inevitable, and I think that in this instance it will be positive.

Standards and Privileges

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House

(1) approves the Second Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 635);

(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 62; and

(3) notes that Mr Denis MacShane has been disqualified as a Member of this House.

The report by the Standards and Privileges Committee into Mr MacShane’s conduct describes it as

“the gravest case which has come to us for adjudication, rather than being dealt with under the criminal law”.

This was deeply reprehensible conduct, including, as the report says, actions “plainly intended to deceive.” That will have angered many of our constituents and Members of this House alike.

In this House, we are determined to meet the highest standards in public life. The events that were the subject of the complaint against Mr MacShane took place between 2005 and 2008. Since the expenses scandal three years ago, we have instituted measures to seek to rebuild trust in our procedures and in Members themselves. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 provides for an offence of providing false and misleading information to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. This is designed to ensure that anyone submitting false invoices now would be caught and could be prosecuted.

We are committed to ensuring that such behaviour could not take place now or in the future, but we must recognise that independent scrutiny and enforcement is not enough. We should expect Members of the House themselves to set and meet the highest standards of conduct. The fact they have not is a matter of deep regret, and in this House I know we will be determined to demonstrate that we will not tolerate such lamentable breaches of those standards. We must make it clear that such breaches will be dealt with seriously and proportionately. It is in pursuance of this that I have moved the motion.

Mr MacShane has sought and secured disqualification from the House. The motion notes this, but none the less approves the report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges and its recommendations. To do so will establish that the House will act against Members on the basis of the Committee’s report and the Commissioner’s inquiries and conclusions. It may be that Members will not wish to debate in detail the findings of the report and investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, recognising that any possible further action now lies outside this place. None the less, in my view, it is important that we put the endorsement by the House of the Committee’s report on the record.

The Chair of the Committee will wish to explain its conclusions and recommendations in further detail, but I should like to put on record our thanks to him and his Committee, and to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, for their work in this case, and for their continued work in the House. It has been the practice of this House to endorse the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and I invite hon. Members to do so today.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

The business for tomorrow will now be:

Tuesday 6 November—Motion to approve the Second Report 2012-13 from the Standards and Privileges Committee, followed by Second Reading of the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union.

The business for the next day will be:

Wednesday 7 November—Opposition day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate on regional pay in the NHS, followed by a debate on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

The business for the rest of this week remains unchanged, as follows:

Thursday 8 November—Debate on a motion relating to the medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons administration and savings programme, followed by general debate on stimulating growth through better use of the prompt payment code. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 November—Private Members’ Bills.

I will, as usual, announce further business during the business statement on Thursday.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) does not wish to contribute. We are grateful to the Leader of the House, and if there are no questions—this is almost unprecedented in respect of anything said by the Leader of the House or any other Government representative—we shall move on.