Select Committee on Governance of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

When I was a member of the House of Commons Commission, we agreed in April that there should be a review of governance, in order to determine in the future whether the post of Clerk of the House should continue to be combined with that of chief executive. The Commission also concluded that it was neither legal nor practical to make a change at that time. We therefore agreed to advertise the post of Clerk and chief executive on the same basis as happened in 2011. I remind the House that in this Parliament, in 2011, an open competition took place for the post of Clerk and chief executive. Both Clerks and non-Clerks applied and were interviewed. Robert Rogers, of course, was appointed and proved a successful occupant of the post. We may have wished, with good reason, that he would have continued on in post and not retired, but that was not to be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, the combined post of Clerk and chief executive developed in response to the Ibbs report of November 1990, which found profound failings then. When the Braithwaite report looked again in 1999, it reported substantial improvements and said that the leadership of the Clerk of the House, acting as chief executive, had been instrumental in that progress. Paragraph 4.63 summarised the situation well:

“The Clerk is armed with most of the skills and attributes needed for the role…He has the authority of his office; demonstrable leadership at a high level; deep knowledge of the political context and process, and all the skills required to operate effectively in this environment; and a profound understanding of the business of supporting the House and its work.”

The Tebbit review in 2007 looked again at whether an outsider should run the House service and recommended that the Clerk should continue to perform the dual role of Clerk and chief executive. I encourage hon. Members to read paragraphs 86 to 88 of the Tebbit review.

Why did I support the need for a review at the Commission in April? First, while the restoration and renewal project from 2020 onwards must have discrete project governance, it would certainly benefit from having one client, not two. A chief executive acting for both Houses of Parliament would bring clarity and coherence in the years during which the R and R project is under way. Such a review would need to be undertaken together with the House of Lords. That is not in our gift this evening, but we can seek for that to happen.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a small technical matter, am I not right in thinking that the director-general for resources is already responsible for the Commons end and the Lords end?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, there is joint working in some respects. That is one area. Information technology and security are others. But generally there is not joint working in relation to the Parliament and the estate as a whole. Under those circumstances, one would have to forgo the possibility of the Clerk also being chief executive as this House and the House of Lords would have to retain a separate Clerk of the House and Clerk of the Parliaments. There would of course be attendant risks in separating out those functions, but a potential efficiency gain of a significant kind overall.

I support the motion and look forward to the Select Committee considering it. None the less, I urge the Select Committee to take evidence and to consider that wider potential context within which it could work. However, the Select Committee cannot resolve the current impasse in the appointment process, which is “paused”. I saw the case for a pause—I often do—but it cannot now be continued. The Commission has the authority to cancel the current appointment process. It should do so now. It is no criticism of Carol Mills, who interviewed well, to say that her knowledge of the constitutional and procedural issues, as required of the Clerk of the House, would not suffice. I took that view, but was not supported by the majority of the selection panel. It is particularly regrettable that Mr Speaker sought expressly to water down the 2011 requirement in the job description that the Clerk should have

“detailed knowledge of the procedures and practices of the House.”

Mr Speaker sought to replace “detailed knowledge” with “awareness”.

By way of compromise, the word “detailed” was left out. But the selection panel was not therefore asked to subject candidates to the same test as in 2011. The process for appointment was, therefore, ill-founded, and any internal candidate with the procedural and practical knowledge but less opportunity to be a chief executive of a large organisation was at a disadvantage.

I propose that the current appointment process be scrapped; that an internal temporary appointment to the post of Clerk of the House should be made; and that an internal appointment to the post of chief operating officer could be made. That was proposed to the selection panel, but not supported. It is now the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Hodge]

As a member of a committee that promoted an international candidate, of course I agree with that.

We were very mindful of the importance of the procedural duties associated with the job. There are, however, well over 100 people working in the House who are knowledgeable about and familiar with procedure. We were also mindful that the post holder is responsible for spending more than £200 million of taxpayers’ money and employing 1,750 people. This palace lies at the heart of our democracy, yet the way it is run is wasteful and shambolic. We are asking our constituents to bear substantial expenditure cuts and cuts in services, and while they suffer that we are swimming in inefficiencies. Yet, because some Members concern themselves only with what happens in this Chamber, they are willing to downgrade the vital job of ensuring best value from the expenditure of more than £200 million of their constituents’ hard-earned money.

Things are so shambolic that, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, it can take our constituents an hour to get through St Stephen’s to see us. We overspent massively on the building of Portcullis House, yet managing capital projects seems less important than who is sitting in a chair in the Chamber. It is as important to our democracy to run this place well as it is to have somebody in the chair who is knowledgeable about, and experienced in, procedure. However, because we were mindful of the importance of both roles, we held two rounds of interviews. It proved impossible to find a single individual capable of fulfilling both roles, but several of the members of the panel thought that Carol Mills was the only appointable candidate.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry but that was not the view we took. We found more than one candidate appointable, but the panel took a judgment about which candidate should be recommended. I am afraid it is not correct to say that other candidates were not appointable.

[Margaret Hodge]

We will have to disagree. I think a different view was expressed at the second round of interviews from that at the first.

However, we were mindful of the fact that advice on procedural matters was vital and that Carol Mills would take time to develop her knowledge and skills. That was precisely the reason we proposed that Mr Natzler’s role should be retitled to provide greater status and that his salary should be increased to reflect that status. The successful candidate excelled at interview, and the fact that she has not walked away despite totally unwarranted personal attacks on her integrity and record confirms in my mind that she has the toughness required to bring the House into the 21st century.

I hope that the motion before the House will be carried, but the way we have got here has been unparliamentary and shameful.

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am very glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Robert Rogers, with whom it has been my pleasure to work during the last two years as Leader of the House. I heartily endorse everything that has been said and, in particular, what the Leader of the House said in tribute. I welcome him to his responsibilities. I know from personal experience that he will start out, as a previous Leader of the House advised me, not knowing precisely what his tasks will entail, but he will find that he enjoys it far more than he perhaps anticipates. One of the things that I have most enjoyed has been having the ability to work with Robert Rogers, the Clerks and the administration of the House. Many Members might not understand the complexity and demands of the tasks they have to undertake, and I was one of them before I was Leader of the House. I now appreciate the skill with which not only the Clerks but the whole House service manage to achieve that.

I completely agree with all that has been said. Robert’s scholarship and knowledge are legendary and I have had the benefit of them. From my point of view, one of the things I most appreciated was his ability to take on problems, often of a complex procedural kind. I must say that I did not lack advice, often expert advice, but the problems with which one must deal as a business manager are sometimes deep. The quality of the advice one receives is not just the product of time spent in this House. It often depends on the quality of the intellect and the judgment that goes with it, and Robert has brought to the House in an exemplary fashion not only expertise and authority but the judgment and intellect needed to advise on how such problems might be solved. Just because things sometimes look easy does not mean that they are, and the nature of what the Clerk—and especially Robert over his career—can achieve involves making people believe that procedure can be dealt with readily whereas in truth it is the product of immense expertise and effort. He has demonstrated that to a remarkable and exemplary degree.

Let me add just a couple of points. From a personal point of view, many of the tributes illustrate that the relationship between Members and Clerks, particularly on the Committees on which we serve, is often a close one. At the heart of it—this has been the case for me over the past two years—is trust. Trust is a very precious commodity and I could trust Robert with every question, every issue and every problem that might arise, knowing that he would address it utterly impartially. I know that that was the experience of Government, Opposition and other parties in this House. He was utterly impartial among Members and parties, in a way that enabled one to have absolute trust in the integrity and authority with which he applied himself to issues. That has been tremendously important and I have greatly appreciated it.

I also appreciate, as I think we all do in the House, the ability to have such personal relationships, and the fun that we have had together. Over the past two years, I have particularly enjoyed many humour-laden conversations about issues that might not otherwise have been regarded as being that funny.

I share the Father of the House’s regret that Robert Rogers was not able to be persuaded to continue in post for longer. We have benefited immensely from his expertise, authority, integrity and honesty, and the trust we can place in him, which has been discharged so wonderfully over these past three years. I join others in wishing Robert, Jane and his family fun, enjoyment, humour and a very full life in Herefordshire and elsewhere in the years to come.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 14 July—Second Reading of the Childcare Payments Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report from the Committee on Standards on respect policy.

Tuesday 15 July—Proceedings on a Business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill.

Wednesday 16 July—Motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by Second Reading of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.

Thursday 17 July—Statement on the publication of the second report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, “A New Magna Carta?”, followed by statement on the publication of the second report from the Education Committee, “Safe and Suitable: 16-plus Care Options”, followed by debate on a motion relating to the universal postal service obligation, followed by general debate on provision of education for children with autism, followed by general debate on the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Select Committee statements and the subjects for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee, to be followed, if necessary, by consideration of Lords amendments.

Friday 18 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 July will include:

Monday 21 July—Second Reading of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill.

Tuesday 22 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 17 and 21 July will be:

Thursday 17 July—Debate on the middle east and north Africa.

Monday 21 July—Debate on an e-petition relating to making Eid and Diwali public holidays.

Hon. Members will wish to know that Westminster Hall sittings will be temporarily relocated to Committee Room 10 for the two weeks of the September sitting. Repair and modernisation work will be undertaken to the lift that provides access to the Grand Committee Room and the Jubilee CPA and IPU Rooms. This work will not affect the Grand Committee Room itself, but will rule out disabled access, and the relocation to Committee Room 10 will therefore ensure that Members of Parliament, staff and members of the public who require lift access will still be able to attend sittings in Westminster Hall.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, and for ensuring that access to our debates for those with disabilities remains possible, despite the works that inevitably have to go on during the recess.

I realise that we will hear a statement shortly, but will the Leader of the House confirm the arrangements for next Tuesday’s sitting, and whether he will extend it to ensure that the House can properly scrutinise emergency legislation to restore the status quo prior to the European Court ruling on data protection?

We now have the business until the summer recess. After six weeks of legislative lethargy, just like buses, all the Government’s Queen’s Speech legislation has come along at once, with 25% of it in just five days. On Monday we will debate the Childcare Payments Bill. Nursery costs have risen five times faster than wages since the election, but the Government have done nothing, and this Bill will not come into force until after the next election. Will the Leader of the House tell us why the Government will not support our plans to extend free child care from 15 hours to 25 hours? And will he tell us why with this Government it is always too little too late?

On Wednesday, we will debate the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which bears an eerie resemblance to the Deregulation Bill as it features such a random assortment of issues that virtually any new clause the Government care to produce is within its scope. Will the Leader of the House now give me a cast-iron assurance that the Government have no intention of tabling 45 new clauses and leaving just 43 minutes to debate them, as they did during the passage of the Deregulation Bill in the Commons? Will he tell us why the Governments do not back our plans to provide certainty for people working regular hours on a zero-hours contract?

A week on Monday, we will debate the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, which has a title that is longer than its contents. The Government really are living in a parallel universe. The Passport Office has tried to claim that everything is okay, but it is still struggling with a backlog of half a million applications. The Prime Minister tried to claim that the NHS is getting better when it is actually getting worse and then we had the spectacle of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions being dragged to the House surreptitiously to confirm while appearing to deny that the business case for the implementation of universal credit is yet to be signed off by the Treasury. The Secretary of State denied on the Floor of the House yesterday that the Treasury had ever questioned the financial viability of the business case for his pet project, but on Monday the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, said that the Treasury played a role

“in bringing to the Secretary of State’s attention that the project was way off track.”

That directly contradicts what the Secretary of State said yesterday and both cannot be true, so which is true?

As the population ages, more people are in need of care, but this week figures show that the number of people receiving care has fallen by 5% in the past year alone. A report from the Public Accounts Committee warns today that despite the squeeze in adult social care, the Government do not appreciate the scale of the challenge. I was therefore surprised to read an e-mail from the Liberal Democrat Education Minister to party members that laments that

“almost half of all carers are cutting back on essentials like food and heating.”

He fails to mention that that is because his Government have cut £3.5 billion from care services. The Deputy Prime Minister told the Radio Times this week that it takes a “steely side” and thick skin to get on in politics, but he failed to admit that Liberal Democrats also need two faces. I understand that Liberal Democrat MPs have been sent to Bedfordshire for survival training. At least they are finally admitting that they are an endangered species teetering on the verge of extinction.

This week, the Financial Times has revealed that the majority of candidates selected to replace retiring Tory MPs are white male Eurosceptics. In South Suffolk, the long list contained seven women but the shortlist was made up of three men. A former leader of the UK Independence party will contest South Thanet for the Tories. It has gone from the A-list to the Tea party. This week, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—a Conservative Member—admitted that he keeps the Prime Minister off his leaflets, that no one wants to keep hearing about Europe and that it is so lonely being a northern Tory that their regional group could meet in a lift. Where does that leave the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her remarks. May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to say how much I and other Members of the House enjoyed hearing the parliamentary choir singing with their colleagues from the Bundestag last night? I know that you, Mr Speaker, and Professor Dr Norbert Lammert, President of the Bundestag, had the opportunity to address a packed Westminster Hall. It was the most inspiring and entertaining concert.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the business for next Tuesday. She is quite right: as we will complete all stages of the Bill on Tuesday it is important that we have a full opportunity for debate, so, subject to discussion and a motion being put before the House, I hope that the debate will extend to 10 pm.

The shadow Leader of the House seemed to castigate us for not having enough legislation, but in order to do so she ignored the fact that after the Queen’s Speech debate we entered into the consideration of a number of carry-over Bills and the Finance Bill, and we are now moving on to the Second Readings of the Bills that have been introduced in this Session. That is entirely normal. Strangely enough, she said that there is too little legislation and then complained that the small business Bill had too much in it and that we might introduce amendments to it. It is a wide-ranging Bill. Its character is different from that of the Deregulation Bill. That Bill is principally about removing regulations that cause a burden, but the small business Bill is about making the policy changes in legislation that are necessary to promote enterprise and reduce burdens. This is not just about reducing burdens but about promoting enterprise, and rightly so.

Curiously, the hon. Lady said that the small business Bill was too long and then complained that the heroism Bill was too short. I quite like a short Bill, as it happens—I think that is rather a good thing. I look forward to the Second Reading debate on the Bill, which will introduce the important aspect of giving people in law, in civil cases, the opportunity to be sure that when they undertake something that is in the broad public interest or demonstrates heroism, they will not be penalised. I think that is very helpful.

The hon. Lady seems to have taken to a habit of starting to re-run Opposition debates—in this instance, on universal credit. The House had an opportunity to debate universal credit on an Opposition motion, an opportunity to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions answer the urgent question very thoroughly and successfully, and an opportunity, through the Liaison Committee, on estimates, to debate the implementation of universal credit. In every instance, my right hon. Friend and Ministers made it admirably clear how we are proceeding with a policy that, frankly, the Opposition supported. It is typical political opportunism to try to cavil as we implement this safely and securely, as distinct from their implementation of the tax credit system, which was, in truth, chaotic.

The hon. Lady talked about the cost of living. Let me remind her of what this coalition is doing together to assist people with the inevitable difficulties of coping in the wake of the destruction of economic value by Labour, which took £3,000 per household out of the value of the economy. We are cutting tax for over 26 million people, taking 3 million people out of income tax altogether, freezing fuel duty for the rest of this Parliament, helping local authorities to freeze council tax, delivering an average £50 reduction in energy bills, cutting £50 from some of the highest water bills down in the south-west, capping rail fare increases, capping charges on pensions, stopping excessive charges when paying with credit and debit cards, and capping the cost of payday loans. On child care, which she mentioned, we are funding 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds and for disadvantaged two-year-olds. I look forward to the support that I hope the House will give to the Childcare Payments Bill, which introduces tax-free child care for working families. That is how we are helping working families in this coalition Government, and I look forward to the debates that push that agenda forward.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a case that I know is of concern to his constituents, and Members will have been interested in what he had to say. I will, if I may, speak to my colleagues at the Home Office, in order to establish what the position is.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps I can look to a distinguished former Cabinet Minister to offer us the tutorial in brevity. I call Mr John Denham.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on compensation for faulty work carried out under the affordable warmth obligation? The Mark Group carried out work on the home of a constituent of mine, presenting itself as delivering a Government scheme, but now neither it nor the regulator or Ministers are willing to act to compensate my constituent.

[Mr Lansley]

I was not familiar with the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will, of course, raise it with my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He may, of course, wish to raise it himself at next Thursday’s questions.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent tragic case of three-year-old Sam Morrish in my constituency. Sam died of sepsis while under the care of the local NHS and it took more than two years for the ombudsman’s report to be delivered, causing a lot of grief to my constituent, which, frankly, is a disgrace. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in this Chamber on the ineffective and unaccountable ombudsman process, which was established in 1967 and the guidelines for which are now long overdue for reform, particularly given that that was the conclusion reached by the Public Administration Committee in its April 2014 report?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a tragic case and I share with the Prime Minister, with whom she has also raised it, the sense of deep regret and sorrow for the family of Sam Morrish. I have a number of things to say in response. First, the role of the ombudsman is to mitigate distress and to provide redress where appropriate. When that does not happen, the health ombudsman herself very much regrets it and she has expressed regret in this case. The Government are considering the Public Administration Committee reports on how complaints about public services are handled. The Cabinet Office is taking a wider look at the role and powers of the public sector ombudsman and we will respond to those reports in due course.

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

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for receiving the Speaker of the Parliament of Pakistan with such courtesy? I saw him last night and he appreciated it very much.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 238, standing in my name and those of other Members, with regard to the persecution of a constituent of mine who is a member of staff of a branch of Asda in my constituency?

[That this House condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the tyrannical employment practices of Asda, whose branch in Longsight, Manchester, has bullied and bludgeoned a staff member, a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, for more than two years, placing his livelihood in jeopardy throughout this period, subjecting him to intolerable pressure and blatantly violating their own employment procedures; in particular condemns Allan Edwards, Asda Director of Public Affairs, who, in correspondence with the right hon. Member over a prolonged period, has procrastinated and dodged in order to fob off extremely justified concerns; and calls on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to investigate these immoral thugs, who clearly believe that they are immune from decency because of the company’s huge wealth.]

My constituent came to see me last Friday evening in a state of enormous distress about the way in which this huge, powerful and wealthy organisation has deprived him of his employment and put him through procedures that were not necessary, while not abiding with its own internal procedures. This is intolerable in any circumstances. An organisation that advertises on television how marvellous it is ought to be dealt with. Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to me in his customary helpful fashion?

[Mr Lansley]

I have read the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is expressed in strong terms, as, indeed, was his question just now. I will, as he asks in his early-day motion, ask my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to it and his question. There are civil procedures available under employment law for those who are the subject of any kind of discrimination or bullying, and it is those routes, rather than those of Government, that should primarily be used.

[Mr Speaker]

Everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) says is said in strong terms.

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

Many parents will not have been able to get their children to school today. May we have a debate on whether to make it a statutory duty of governing bodies that schools stay open?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. This matter is a cause of considerable regret, an inconvenience to many parents and completely unnecessary. The National Union of Teachers, proceeding as it is on a mandate from a ballot way back in September 2012, is taking unjustified and intemperate action. I hope it will reconsider taking such action in future, but if it does not it will be important for Government to consider all the circumstances involved in such events and whether the law is right in this area.

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

The regional air connectivity fund could be used to make airports in the north of Scotland, such as Stornoway, more central by investigating the possibility of links to the further north, namely the Faroe Islands—a similar group of islands to the Hebrides—or even as a stop on the route through to the Faroes or Iceland. Does the Leader of the House think that we could have a full debate on this matter? [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

That is an interesting new interpretation of brevity: just to have the same number of words, but expressed in a shorter period of time. I cannot promise a debate, but I will of course seek a response to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

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

The Leader of the House will be fully aware that it is almost exactly six months since a sizeable part of the flooding started in Somerset. May we have time for a debate to discuss the lessons learned, the things we are doing and what that means across the UK so that the lessons we are learning now are not forgotten if we have the same problem next year?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course talk to my hon. Friends about that matter, and although time is very limited before the recess I none the less hope that we can learn such lessons before the time of year when there is a further risk of flooding. More to the point, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is very keen to come back to the House as soon as he can to update hon. Members.

In relation to the previous question, there is a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday on domestic and international connectivity provided by regional airports, which may be helpful to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is summer and people want to be out in the countryside, so may we have a debate on the delays to the coastal path and other obstacles to access?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman’s objective is very laudable, and if time were available for such a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment, I am sure that many hon. Members from across the House would welcome it.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the dredging of the Thames estuary? Leigh-on-Sea fishermen are complaining about the loss of their catch. I recently waded into the Thames estuary—I cannot walk on water yet—and I saw Victorian cart tracks that have been exposed. Something is amiss with the Thames estuary.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry that I was not present to see my hon. Friend’s Canute moment. Happily, I can tell him that the Marine Management Organisation is aware of the concerns raised by fishermen about commercial fish stocks in the Thames. In the next few weeks, the Marine Management Organisation, the Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and the Environment Agency will organise a joint agency workshop to bring together industry leaders and experts to review the current state of key commercial fish stocks in the Thames. They will consider environmental impacts, marine developments, climate issues, freshwater run-off and reduced salination. They are very happy to keep my hon. Friend informed about this matter.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time we had a debate on the absurdity of English and Welsh school holidays? The fact is that we still base holidays on getting in the harvest or on closing mills to look after children. It is a rotten system and it needs to be changed. People are exploited by premium prices during school holidays. Let us get school holidays right. Surely that is a good topic for a debate.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was certainly considerable public interest about this subject on our e-petitions website. If I recall correctly, it gave rise to a debate provided through the Backbench Business Committee. He is absolutely right that it is important to have such a debate, because parents feel strongly on both sides of the issue—about ensuring that children are in school with access to education, rather than absented; and about giving parents some relief from the very high cost of holidays that have to be taken during school holidays.

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

As one of the trustees of the Parliament choir, I thank the Leader of the House for his kind remarks. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Speaker of the other place for facilitating the historic event last night with the Bundestag choir. Through you, I also thank all the staff who made the evening so wonderful by working so hard.

May we have a debate on access for the elderly and the disabled to London Underground stations? Unlike the Speaker and the Leader of the House, who are replacing Westminster Hall with Committee Room 10 so that the disabled and elderly can have access to our deliberations, London Underground still refuses to provide step-free access at Amersham station.

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my right hon. Friend has to say. Of course, her constituency is outwith London. None the less, as I understand it, this matter is the responsibility of Transport for London. She might wish to seek a debate on the Adjournment. To be as helpful as possible, I will write to Transport for London and the Mayor of London to see how they respond to the point that she rightly makes.

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

On 13 May, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to write to me about it. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised to raise it with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Is it not time that the Secretary of State came to the House to talk about broadband and the plans to improve infrastructure, because Members of all parties from up and down the country have concerns about it?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will recall that the Secretary of State and his Ministers talked about broadband in response to questions last week. I thought that they did so very persuasively. I will look back at the dates to which she refers and see whether there are specific issues on which I can encourage Ministers to respond to her further.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The 668 bus from Cheddar village connects to the main service to Bristol, where several of its residents work. The cuts that have been made by Somerset county council mean that the bus will end its journey in Shipham, leaving a 1.5 mile gap to Langford, which is across the county border. I have remonstrated with the council, but it does not see that saving £14,000 annually on a bus service means that the taxpayer will have to support people who have to give up their jobs, even though they are able to work. Is there anything that the Leader of the House can do to help?

[Hon. Members]

No!

[Mr Lansley]

There is. I can encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to respond to the point that my hon. Friend has made so persuasively on behalf of her constituents.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Like many Members, I have had the melancholy experience of writing to officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, in this case about a personal independence payment centre in Blackpool, waiting two months for a reply and then finding that the answer has been outsourced to Atos. May we have a debate on the responsibility of Departments to ensure that when Members write to their officials, the answers are not outsourced to organisations that have been judged to be failing?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman is able to give me the details, I will look into the precise circumstances of his correspondence. My practice as a Member of Parliament, when I believe that there is a ministerial responsibility, is to write to Ministers about issues. I do not always get a reply, but I hope to get one. That tends to ensure that the responsibility for the reply is not diverted elsewhere.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Rugby is well known as the birthplace of the game, but our offer to visitors also includes our festival of culture, which is on right now. Given the pressure on town centres across the country, may we have a debate on how such events can revitalise town centres and bring people into them?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad to have the chance to congratulate Rugby on its ambition and vision, which is displayed in its festival of culture. We welcome partnerships such as that between Rugby First and Rugby borough council, as well as the other sponsors and partners, which show what culture can do to promote town centres and instil pride in local communities across the country. We have the UK city of culture competition but, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated, many other towns and cities can show how culture can be an essential part of their further regeneration.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has already announced the Third Reading of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which we will consider on Tuesday, but we have not even had its First Reading yet. Will he ensure that he tables two motions on Monday: one to allow the tabling of amendments before Second Reading, which otherwise would not be allowed, and another to allow manuscript amendments to be taken on the Floor of the House on Tuesday?

[Mr Lansley]

We are proceeding with legislation that is urgent. For that reason, some of the normal processes are being telescoped together. The short answer to the first request is yes, I will certainly ensure that it is possible for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading so that they may be considered in Committee and on Report. However, manuscript amendments are a matter for the Chair.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate next week on the courtesies to be shown to Members of Parliament by the machinery of government better to enable us to do our jobs properly on behalf of our constituents? Is there any possible reason why the leader of the district council in my constituency, the chief executive and I have been banned by Defence Ministers from meeting Neil Firth, who leads a defence and storage centre in Bicester? That is a significant local employer and there are a number of relevant and immediate local issues about job security and planning.

[Mr Lansley]

May I take the opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend a happy birthday? I am sorry to report that due to an administrative error he was sent an incomplete and inadequate response to his letter to the Minister responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne). That did not follow the proper process, and I assure my right hon. Friend that the Minister will write to him with a comprehensive response. The Minister has offered briefings to all interested Members on the competitive process, and indicated that he is willing to meet the delegation from Cherwell district council to hear its concerns.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On 17 July, the Hallett review into on-the-runs will be published, and I note that no space is available for a statement in the House. Will the Leader of the House make that space available and allow for a statement on that day?

[Mr Lansley]

The only reason I did not refer to the statement next Thursday is that I announced it last week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement next Thursday on the Hallett review.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has visited India more than any other country, and the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are both in India this week, building on our wonderful relationships with that country. May we have a statement or a debate on building relationships with India and the new Modi-led Government?

[Mr Lansley]

It is welcome that the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor visited India this week and were able to meet Indian Prime Minister Modi, as well as the Finance and Foreign Ministers. That enabled us to engage with the new Indian Government, and allowed the Foreign Secretary to announce a quadrupling of funding for the Chevening scholarship scheme, as well as an expansion of our diplomatic network in India. The Chancellor announced significant inward investments and substantial UK export finance credit to support investment in Indian infrastructure projects. Not least, I am delighted that my right hon. Friends announced plans for a statue of Mahatma Gandhi—the inspiration for non-violent civil rights movements around the world—to be erected in Parliament square early next year.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents have been in touch with me recently to express alarm at the escalating situation in Gaza, and that topic arouses great interest in many Members across the House who have sincerely held views. May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary next week on the position of the UK Government?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the Foreign Secretary has been assiduous in keeping the House updated and making statements as and when appropriate. In particular, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the debate in Westminster Hall next Thursday—I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it—on the middle east and north Africa.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Public Health England recently informed me that it intends to submit an outline business case to the Treasury on the future of the Porton Down facility in my constituency. Given the importance of that decision and the Government’s drive to increase transparency in decision making, will the Leader of the House make time for a statement from the Minister so that I can have access to the documents that underpin that decision by Ministers?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that it is established practice that outline business case documents are not shared outside the Government in advance of decisions being made, to protect commercial confidentiality and the integrity of decision making. However, I completely recognise the importance of ensuring that Members are given as much information as possible, and I understand that Public Health England has been discussing, and will continue to discuss, the progress of that business case with my hon. Friend.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent statement on patient budgets and the change of policy by NHS England? Without a statement to Parliament or an impact assessment, who is in charge of the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think it is a fundamental change in policy. When I was Health Secretary I was clear, for example, that for those with continuing health care needs, personal budgets would be established that embraced health needs and social care needs. As the Health and Social Care Act 2012 continues to make clear, the Secretary of State is responsible for the national health service and will—and does—report to the House whenever there are major changes in policy affecting the NHS as a whole.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Residents in the villages of Henley, Shareshill and Featherstone are often blighted by industrial-scale car boot sales. May we have a debate in the House on the irresponsibility of the operators and the impact they are having on my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good case for an Adjournment debate in order to illustrate those issues more fully, but if I may be helpful in the meantime, I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government to establish what opportunities local authorities have to ensure that car boot sales function in a way that is fair to local people.

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

The report published by the Public Accounts Committee and today’s Daily Mail say that there are more than 300 complaints a day of abuse by carers of elders. May we have a debate on the Government’s policy on keeping our most vulnerable adults safe?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will recall that the coalition Government have responded to elder abuse on many occasions. In particular, through the establishment of more inspections and an unannounced inspection regime by the Care Quality Commission, we are trying to give greater reassurance and to take action when any evidence of abuse emerges. That is especially true of abuse in domiciliary care. The CQC is working to ensure that it can take appropriate steps, including inspections, in domiciliary care circumstances, which have hitherto effectively been without that kind of scrutiny.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 240 on Travellers?

[That this House notes that over 100 travellers are currently parked illegally on three sites in Harlow; further notes that they are illegally moving between multiple sites in Harlow; is pleased that Essex Police are issuing the travellers on Third Avenue in Harlow with a Section 61 notice that will require the travellers to leave their current site; recognises the hard work of Harlow Council to resolve this issue; thanks Harlow residents for their ongoing patience on this matter; and therefore urges Essex Police to issue further Section 61 notices on the remaining illegal sites.]

We have a crisis in Harlow to do with Travellers that is reaching breaking point. Essex police are reluctant to use section 61. When the Travellers are moved on, they go to another location nearby. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House look at the law, and contact the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see what he can do to help us in Harlow?

[Mr Lansley]

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend, who raises an issue of importance to his constituents. I understand that not least because, in my constituency, at Smithy Fen next to Cottenham, we had considerable problems over a number of years. The coalition Government have given additional powers. We made a number of those changes to try to ensure that we can stop abuse and that enforcement action can be taken. Local authorities and police have powers. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. I know he will be as assiduous as he is on so many other issues to ensure that the authorities take whatever action they can to protect his constituents.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions denied to me and the House that any concerns had been raised by the Treasury on the financial viability of the business case for universal credit. That seems to be at odds with the comments made earlier in the week by the head of the home civil service. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Treasury Minister to come to the House as soon as possible to clarify whether the Treasury has raised any financial concerns about the business case?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made the position perfectly clear, but let me reiterate that the Treasury confirmed, on 7 July, that it has approved funding for the universal credit programme in 2013-14 and 2014-15, in line with what the Secretary of State said. The universal credit programme is on track to roll out safely and securely against the plan set out last year. The service is available in 24 jobcentres, and the Treasury is fully engaged in that roll-out.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Within the next six months, the Ministry of Defence will announce the successful bidder for the future supply of defence logistics and repairs to Her Majesty’s armed forces. May we have a debate on why Shropshire and MOD Donnington’s professional and skilled work force should win that contract?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will continue to lobby effectively on behalf of his constituents. In the same fashion as I described to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), the Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear his case.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House before the summer recess on the impact he believes his changes to the education support grant will have from this September, bearing in mind the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister on 2 July about the SWEET project in my constituency, which provides vital social work education and training? The project is having its grant cut from £28 to £20, and it is not the only organisation in that situation.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will note that, if he is in his place on Tuesday when the Secretary of State for Health answers questions, he might, with his usual ingenuity, be able to ensure that he asks that question. He has effectively given notice of it.

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

Will the Leader of the House indicate whether there will be an opportunity in addition to today’s debate to debate the Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs before the House has the opportunity to vote on the opt-ins?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows the debate on this matter will take place after statements. I am sure that during the course of the debate he will have the opportunity to hear more about the process leading to the question of Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs being concluded.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Sangin, Musa Qala, Now Zad and Kajaki, all defended and liberated through the sacrifice of the lives of hundreds of our British soldiers, are all now reported to be under the control of the Taliban. May we have a debate entitled, “Afghanistan: Mission Accomplished”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the whole House shares in the sense of loss of our service personnel in Afghanistan, but I think we can also take great pride in what they have achieved. Their achievements include establishing, through the Afghan national army, the ability to take and hold locations that were previously taken and held by the British Army. Actually, some of the places he refers to have been taken and held by the Afghan national army.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the success of the Tour de France in Yorkshire, which caused great excitement and showcased what a great county Yorkshire is? Such a debate would highlight the strength of feeling in Yorkshire that Gary Verity, who did so much to bring the Tour de France to Yorkshire, and for other things he has done, should be recognised in the next honours list, perhaps with a knighthood. If we cannot have a debate, I hope the Prime Minister, who has very kindly come in to listen to my question, will take that message ringing in his ears as he leaves the Chamber.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well. The Prime Minister will have heard it and I know he will have shared, with literally millions of people, the pleasure of seeing the Tour de France in Yorkshire over the weekend. If I may say so, I took particular pleasure in seeing the Tour de France pass through my constituency on Monday. My hon. Friend makes an interesting and good point.

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

South Tees clinical commissioning group refused a £2,700 individual funding request, relating to gynecomastia, for a very young, lean, fit, low body mass index teenager in my constituency. May we have a debate on how funding requests are considered? Funding was refused on the basis of emotional need, but his emotional needs and mental health were not assessed.

[Mr Lansley]

To be as helpful as I can to the hon. Gentleman, if he provides me with further details I will ensure that, through my hon. Friends at the Department of Health, the CCG responds to his point.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Should my right hon. Friend not be in his place next week because he has been promoted to bigger and better things, may I thank him for his inspired leadership of the House? Before he goes, will he arrange a full day’s debate, in Government time and led by the Prime Minister, on Britain’s long-term economic plan, so that Members from across the House can describe how their constituencies are benefiting from Britain’s strengthening economic recovery?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very kind words. A consistent theme of Business questions is that I would have wished for more time to celebrate the coalition’s Government achievements in pursuing our long-term economic plan: cutting the deficit, promoting growth, delivering welfare reform and capping welfare, controlling immigration, delivering on more skills, and, perhaps most of all, having the opportunity to debate the dramatic increase in employment that has had such a positive effect right across the country.

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

After the astonishing success of the Tour de France, many in the cycling community believe that a world class female tour of Britain would dominate the world. Will he raise that idea with the Secretary of State who has responsibility for sport, and report back?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course raise it. I completely understand. In every possible field, we want to have non-discrimination in terms of access to sport and the kinds of competitive sports we see.

Points of Order

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that that was a point of order, but he has put his concerns on the record. The Leader of the House will say whatever he wants to say, but I just point out that he did reference the general debate on the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-outs, which will take place on Thursday 10 July.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I need say little more, other than to draw the attention of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has done, to the document that was published this morning on the decision pursuant to article 10(5) of protocol 36 to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which relates to the justice and home affairs opt-outs. The document may be debated, as you rightly say, Mr Speaker, next Thursday.

[Mr Speaker]

It would seem churlish and unkind not to allow the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) to make his point of order.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 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 next week will be as follows:

Monday 7 July—Estimates day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on universal credit implementation, followed by a debate on the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. Further details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: There will be a debate on universal credit implementation: monitoring DWP’s performance in 2012-13, Fifth Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 1209, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as Second Special Report, HC 426, Session 2014-15.

The lead Department is Work and Pensions.

There will be a debate on the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England 2014-20, Seventh Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 745, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as Seventh Special Report, HC 1008, 2013-14.

The lead Department is Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.]

At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Tuesday 8 July—Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill.

Wednesday 9 July—Opposition day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate on the subject of education, followed by a debate on housing supply. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 10 July—There will be a general debate on the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-outs.

Friday 11 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 14 July will include the following:

Monday 14 July—Consideration of a Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report from the Committee on Standards on the respect policy.

Tuesday 15 July—A motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by Second Reading of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.

Wednesday 16 July—Opposition day [5th allotted day]. There will be debates on Opposition motions, including one on the subject of health.

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

Friday 18 July—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall will be as follows:

Thursday 10 July—A debate on the second report of the Work and Pensions Committee on the role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. On Monday, we will have the first allotted day for the debate on the estimates. That is an arcane and opaque process that does little to scrutinise the actual spending of the Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to reform the estimates process to ensure real scrutiny? Will he support my call for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer questions in the Chamber on the estimates, separately from the Budget, and for each Cabinet Minister to have a yearly Budget question and answer on spending in their Department?

On Tuesday, we will debate the Modern Slavery Bill, which the Opposition support but which in some areas does not go far enough. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether his Government will accept our amendments to provide statutory legal guardians for child victims of trafficking, and greater transparency in supply chains to ensure that companies do much more to prevent slave labour?

Yesterday, private Members’ Bills were formally introduced. Labour Members brought forward a series of Bills to tackle the scourge of zero-hours contracts, to strengthen the minimum wage and to protect the NHS. However, all Conservative Members could do was cheer yet another Bill on the UK’s membership of the European Union. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They are at it again. While we bring forward practical solutions to the crisis in living standards, all they can do is bang on about Europe.

It has been a year and a half since what was billed as the Prime Minister’s last speech on Europe, but what have we seen since? A Prime Minister too afraid to stand up to the Eurosceptics in his own party has been suffering rebellion after rebellion. The more they bully him, the more he appeases them by picking fights in Europe. The trouble is that he keeps losing. Only this Prime Minister could come to the Chamber and claim that losing 26-2 is actually a triumph. If that is what success looks like, I would not like to see what happens when he fails.

We have a PR Prime Minister who cannot deliver the goods. He promised to protect the NHS and keep waiting lists down, but four years later cancer waits have increased by nearly half. Two thirds of people cannot see their GP within two days and the A and E waiting time target has now been missed every week for almost a year. Instead of getting his facts wrong and smearing the Welsh health service, the Prime Minister should listen to the chair of the British Medical Association, who said that the NHS is

“palpably fraying at the edges”.

Will the Leader of the House finally admit that people cannot trust the Tories with the NHS? Will he arrange for a debate in Government time, so that the Secretary of State for Health can come clean about the scale of his failure?

The Government are living in a parallel universe. The Chancellor claimed that we are “all in this together” but Government figures show that in the last two years 1 million more people fell into absolute poverty. Lord Finkelstein, the Tory peer and one of the Chancellor’s closest confidantes, let the cat out of the bag recently when he said that future Tory cuts will

“undoubtedly fall on poor people”.

Does the Leader of the House agree with him, and will he tell me whether Lord Finkelstein was present last night at the Tory summer ball, where, I am told, a bottle of champagne was auctioned for £45,000? [Interruption.] Was that cheap champagne? We now know that last year’s event was attended by six billionaires, 73 financiers, the owner of a strip club and the judo partner of Vladimir Putin. While the Chancellor’s hedge fund mates and dodgy donors are getting tax cuts, millions of Britons are living in poverty, and now the Chancellor’s ally says they can only expect it to get worse. So can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the meaning of “all in this together”?

The Conservatives recently tried to rebrand themselves as the workers party. They produced that beer and bingo advert aimed at people they think of as proles, but this week they have had to abandon a photo-shoot for working-class MPs because they could find only 14 of them. That is far fewer than went to Eton. It is becoming harder for them even to pretend they are in touch with real life: the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) thinks that Londoners who cannot afford the soaring rents should get on their bikes to Manchester; the family business of the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) is buying up swathes of social housing, trebling rents and threatening mass evictions; and a Tory councillor in Coventry thinks that people who use food banks are selfish.

The Tories say they have changed on Europe, they say they have changed on the NHS and they say they have modernised the Conservative party, but we all know the truth: no matter what spin they put on it, it is the same old Tories.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for responding to the business statement, and to her and her colleagues for giving me the opportunity to announce the business for next Wednesday. She asked about reforming the estimates. As she knows, I am not proposing any reform of the estimates process as such, but Select Committees have considerable latitude and potential to undertake inquiries on departmental expenditure plans and, through the Liaison Committee, to bring forward, on estimates days, opportunities for the House to debate those. I recall that when I was Health Secretary the Health Committee undertook an annual substantive inquiry on all aspects of the health budget. That is not true of all Select Committees, but it is an important pointer to the direction in which we may go. She will be aware that the Public Administration Committee is in discussion with the National Audit Office and often emphasises the importance of NAO support, not only to the PAC but to other Select Committees, in the scrutiny of departmental expenditure.

The hon. Lady asked about the Modern Slavery Bill. Its Second Reading is coming up next week, so, if I may, I will leave things until that debate. We agree on the principles, and I hope the legislation will be of substantial importance. We need to get it right, but, working together, not least with the benefit of the pre-legislative scrutiny, which has been important in that context, I am sure we will have an opportunity to respond to the issues she mentions.

The hon. Lady referred, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to the NHS. I remind her that the Prime Minister was in no sense smearing the NHS in Wales. On the contrary, he was setting out some simple facts. The decisions that the Labour party has made on the NHS in Wales should be understood by people in England as well as by people in Wales. The Labour party has cut the budget for the NHS by 8% in Wales, whereas this year this coalition Government are increasing the budget for the NHS by £3.5 billion. Over this Parliament the NHS budget will increase by £12.7 billion—that is a real-terms increase. That is what is enabling the NHS to deal with rising demand and the very large number of additional patients: 1.3 million more accident and emergency attendances; more than 1 million more in-patient admissions; 6.5 million more out-patient appointments; and 3.5 million more diagnostic tests. Those are substantial increases in demand, and the NHS, with a small real-terms increase, is coping extremely well with that—better than in Wales, where the budget has been cut. For that reason, the latest report—the 2014 report—from the Commonwealth Fund in America put the UK at the top of its comparison of leading health systems across the world. We can be proud of that. All the data on which it is derived, contrary to what the shadow Health Secretary was saying, relate to the experience of the people in this country, in the health service, under this coalition Government.

The hon. Lady asked about private Members’ Bills. I am looking forward to debating those Bills, not least the EU Referendum Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on 17 October. I do not understand why she thinks that that matter is not important to the people of this country. If the European parliamentary elections did nothing else they demonstrated that it is important to the people here. Let me say something that is quite unusual for me. The hon. Lady should listen to Len McCluskey and Unite, because they are telling her party that it should be supporting a referendum on our relationship with Europe.

The Prime Minister’s speech, the Bloomberg speech, was important as it made it clear to the people of this country that they had a right to expect us to enter into a renegotiation of our terms that would lead to reform and give them a choice. As the Prime Minister has said, at the end of the day it is the people of this country who will have a choice. He has fought and won in Europe before. He won in getting us out of the banking bail-out in which the Labour party would have left us. He got the budget cut. When we had a Labour Government, they gave away part of the rebate. Our Prime Minister protected the rebate and cut the budget, and that is important. He will win those battles again.

Finally, I did have the pleasure of going to the summer party last night. I did not see my noble Friend Danny Finkelstein—[Interruption.] I did not buy the champagne, which was bought not for drinking purposes but because it was signed by Margaret Thatcher. [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] The highlight of the evening was not the auction but a speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who illustrated the positive achievements of this coalition Government and the increasing likelihood of a Conservative victory at the next general election.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on the eminent suitability of Derby as the location for the HS2 college? The land is vacant and it is a brownfield site. We can offer apprenticeships and everything that the HS2 college requires, and we are celebrating 175 years of the rail industry in Derby. It is the best place in the country for such a project, so I wish to have a debate on that.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand and applaud my hon. Friend for her support for that project and for her constituency. She will know that the HS2 college will act as a national college, operating on a hub and spoke model, with a main site linking a network of providers across the country. We launched a consultation to identify the most suitable main site for the new college. Bids were assessed and four locations were shortlisted: Derby, Birmingham, Doncaster and Manchester. Those locations gave presentations to support their bids on 27 June, and a final decision on the preferred site will be taken by Ministers shortly.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to make an urgent statement in which he condemns the murder by Israeli terrorists of the Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Khdeir, who was kidnapped yesterday? The murder was the outcome of the hysteria that was deliberately provoked by the Israeli Prime Minister following the kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to send our sympathy to the family of Mohammed Abu Khdeir; to join the American Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has described the murder as “sickening”; and to make it clear to the Israelis that we expect nothing more than the hunting down and bringing to justice of the murderers of this poor boy?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly calls these murders sickening, as are all murders of teenagers. The Government very much condemn the abduction and murder of the Israeli teenagers and the abduction and murder of the Palestinian teenager. It is vital that those who are responsible are held accountable, and in that respect we welcome Israel’s commitment to bringing those responsible to justice and President Abbas’s firm condemnation of the abduction of youngsters. It is essential, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to avoid any action or rhetoric that could lead to further loss of life, and events such as these highlight the importance of reaching a negotiated two-state solution with the benefits that that would bring to all Israelis and Palestinians. I will of course, as he asks, draw his comments to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. As he knows, the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are assiduous in keeping the House informed of events in the middle east. These events and others in the middle east are of serious concern.

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

BT is still using its position as a monopoly supplier to hold up the roll-out of rural broadband. May we have time to discuss that in this place? I have just had the latest list from my constituency and it is pitiful how many places have been enabled. The time has come to send a clear message to BT from the House of Commons that we have had enough of its using its position to blackmail the people of this country and to slow down high-speed roll-out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, BT has won many contracts across the country to provide the roll-out of broadband. As he will have heard during questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the overall progress of broadband roll-out is now very impressive, but we must ensure that it reaches many parts. We both know how frustrating it is that, despite the rapid increases in demand for broadband services, in areas where the infrastructure for superfast access to broadband has not been put in place, services are deteriorating rather than remaining stable. It is vital, and I endorse what my hon. Friend says: we need BT and other contract providers—but principally BT—to be well aware of the requirements to put every effort into meeting and, if possible, exceeding their contractual commitments on superfast broadband.

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

I endorse everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), but on a domestic issue raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), may I suggest that we have a statement or a debate on political funding so that we may try to find out how many Ministers have been involved in meetings and social events with some of the richest people in this country in order to raise cash? Must the Tory party always prostitute itself with an election looming? And the Tories have the impertinence to criticise trade unions!

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no prohibition on social events, although perhaps he wishes for one; I am not sure. As far as I am aware, only one political donation in this country buys influence and that is the political donation made by the trade unions to the Labour party, with £12.6 million donated by Unite since the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) became the hon. Gentleman’s leader. They are now demanding the appointment of a Cabinet Minister for trade unions, no less, whose purpose will be, they say, to bring home the bacon. Since they already decide the candidates for the Labour party, determine the policy of the Labour party and effectively control the leadership of the Labour party, that is some bacon—or perhaps I should say some bacon sandwich.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the publication of the Chilcot report? As someone who attended the debate and changed my mind on how to vote because of what the then non-working-class Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons, I think that it is essential that the Chilcot report is published as soon as possible without redactions so that the House can judge the veracity of what we were told on that momentous occasion.

[Mr Lansley]

Those of us who did not support the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are as anxious as my hon. Friend to see the Chilcot report. In his letter of 28 May to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir John Chilcot said that it was the inquiry’s intention to submit its report to the Prime Minister as soon as possible. I can tell the House that it is the Prime Minister’s hope that it will be able to do so before the end of the year. The Government will not comment on the Iraq inquiry before the publication of the report.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Each and every time a Government Minister is asked about zero-hours contracts, they reference their hope to ban exclusivity clauses, but there are far more problems associated with zero-hours contracts than that, and many other ways in which people are exploited. May we therefore have a debate on zero-hours contracts in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the provision that Ministers refer to is in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. There will be an opportunity, as I announced in the provisional business, for that to be debated.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Control of discretionary social funds passed from the Department for Work and Pensions to local councils on 1 April 2013. In the first year, my local Labour council, Redcar and Cleveland, turned down 91% of applications from people in need and spent only £256,000 of its £765,000 allocation. May we have a debate on how councils are making use of these discretionary social funds?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which might benefit from an application for an Adjournment debate, not least because there may be other Members elsewhere in the House who feel strongly, as he does, about this and their local authority’s decisions.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Boxing, swimming, running and cycling, though not all at the same time, are incredibly well followed and practised sports across Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the legacy of the Commonwealth games so that we can see how the benefit of those wonderful games will be applied to sportspeople across Northern Ireland?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I do not know whether we have time available before the Commonwealth games for such a debate. We are very much looking forward to the Commonwealth games, which will be a tremendous event, and to the opportunity to see this country, not least Scotland, showcasing itself as a venue for great sporting achievement. In that context, in Cambridge and in my constituency, we are also very much looking forward to seeing the Tour de France coming through on Monday.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

At the end of this month NatWest bank proposes to close the final bank branch in Harrow Weald high street, which will have a devastating effect on businesses and individuals in the area. The key point nationally is why banks are allowed to close the last branch in a high street. May we have a debate in Government time on the future of retail banking and the effects on the high street?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend raises a point that will be of interest to many Members across the House, not least at the moment when there is a sort of secular change taking place in the structure of retail banking, with the withdrawal of retail banking from many high streets, including in my own constituency, and the loss of the last remaining bank in some villages. It is difficult to go anywhere else for that kind of access. My hon. Friend and other Members might exploit the opportunity, through the Backbench Business Committee or otherwise, to see whether there is demand among Members for such a debate. He is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so I know that he is familiar with how that Committee works.

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

Back in 2010, when I believe the Leader of the House was the Health Secretary, a promise was made to fund a paediatric neuromuscular consultant post for Birmingham. Would he be interested in a debate in which he can tell us what steps are needed to turn that into reality?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not recall the detail in relation to that, so I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to update the hon. Gentleman and me.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is two years since the Chancellor halved the bridge tolls on the Humber bridge, and figures out this month show that local car users have saved £19 million in crossing tolls. At the same time the number of Humber bridge crossings have gone up. Businesses have also saved money through the halving of heavy goods vehicle tolls. May we have a debate next week on how our long-term economic plan is helping the Humber? That would give us an opportunity to explain to the House why the HS2 college should be in Doncaster.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend can illustrate with evidence the success of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced. It is part of the broader process of ensuring that we have effective infrastructure to support the growth that our long-term economic plan is generating. I am delighted that it is having that effect on infrastructure, as well as on employment, which is going up, and on the deficit, which is coming down, and with taxes now being able to be brought down and with education and skills being promoted, not least through apprenticeships. That is all very much part of the long-term economic plan for regeneration on Humberside.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

During the first and second world wars the majority of engineers in Britain were women, yet today women make up only 7% of the engineering work force, the lowest percentage across Europe. Iceland has 43%. May we have a debate on how we can ensure that women understand that engineering is a first-class career option, for example with companies such as Ford in Bridgend?

[Mr Lansley]

I have every sympathy with what the hon. Lady says and absolutely agree with the principle of trying to bring more women into engineering. Clearly that is very much in our interests, by supporting the further rebalancing of the economy and the growth in manufacturing. It has been pursued by successive Governments. I remember working as a civil servant, way back in 1980, on the Young Engineers campaign, and Women into Science and Engineering was established at that point too. That was 34 years ago and we have still not succeeded. We must ensure that engineering is at the forefront of careers advice, that there is support for the right courses and, indeed, that engineering role models are made available to young women.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the independence of think-tank charities? Last year the Institute for Public Policy Research took up to £40,000 in donations from the TUC and then published a report calling for—wait for it—more trade union power. It looks more like a sock puppet than an independent think-tank charity.

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. He might want look for opportunities to raise the matter himself, perhaps in an Adjournment debate. In any case, I think that it is an important subject for all of us to be aware of. Wherever we are engaged in public policy making, I hope that it will be evidence-based and objective. One of the Nolan principles is objectivity. That should be as true for those who seek to influence policy as it is for those who make it.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Last night I attended a function organised by the all-party group on rail in the north at which Northern Rail set out its future investment programme. Unfortunately, it will only go as far north as York. At another recent meeting, Network Rail outlined its proposals for the next control period, none of which will go beyond York. The current disparity in public infrastructure spending between London and the north-east is 520:1. May we have a debate on when this Government will put that right?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, not least from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech at the beginning of last week, of the importance that we attach to the further promotion on infrastructure that enables all parts of the United Kingdom to have maximum access to the economic growth being generated by this Government’s long-term economic plan. High-speed rail will clearly make a significant difference, but there are many other projects being promoted by Network Rail. I will draw the attention of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport to the point the hon. Gentleman makes as we approach the publication later this year of the infrastructure plans for the next 10 years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will ask my hon. Friend’s question for him.

I want to be helpful to the shadow Leader of the House because of her view that Conservative Members are rabid fanatics obsessed with the issue of Europe. Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on Europe in order that we can praise the Prime Minister for his valiant standing up for British interests against the election of President Juncker? We could also look at reform of Europe. There has to be something wrong when we spend £30 million of our money by sending it abroad to youngsters who have never set foot in the United Kingdom via the payments that we give in support to these children. I believe that we now have the support of Germany on this. I think it is therefore an area where real reform can now be made.

[Mr Lansley]

I noted the reports this morning about debates in the Bundestag about exactly these issues of transfer payments and benefit payments to other countries. That highlights the fact that there is a growing sympathy for what our Prime Minister and members of this Government have been saying about the necessity of the free movement of peoples being about free movement for the purposes of work, not of access to benefits, and that will form part of our reform programme. I cannot promise an immediate debate, although my hon. Friend will have noted that next week’s business includes a debate on the justice and home affairs opt-out.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is disgraceful that a very high percentage of children up and down our country never get to visit the British countryside? May we have an early debate on access to the countryside? Will he join my campaign, which is an all-party campaign that includes some very good Members on his Benches, to get 150 people in every constituency to read a countryside poem on video, thereby raising £5,000 that will go towards getting schools in poorer areas of our country to visit the countryside to love it and learn about it?

[Mr Lansley]

I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I am fortunate enough to have, and to live in, a constituency that is predominantly in the countryside, and I very much appreciate what a privilege that is. It is something that is not necessarily available to people in cities and urban areas, and we should give them access to it. I am very engaged with what he describes about the reading of poetry. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about ways in which his admirable objective can be pursued.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

There is concern among residents in my constituency that the two hospitals that serve it, based in Grimsby and Scunthorpe, are having to share more and more services and the different specialisms at each location. May we have a debate to explore the reasons for this? Much of it is driven by medical professionals, which is quite right, but, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, it causes considerable concern to constituents.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand what my hon. Friend says. As he says, this is, and should be, clinically led, and it should be evidence-based. He will recall, no doubt, that this has been happening over the years; it is a steady process, not something that started under this coalition Government. It is sometimes the necessary consequence of securing access to sufficient staff with sufficient expertise and sufficient regular practice to be able to provide a 24/7 service; we need a 24/7 NHS. It should not, however, lead to a loss of access that has a damaging impact on outcomes; it should be outcomes-based. In relation to his local area, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond specifically to his point.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

This House has made real progress on scrutinising important public appointments. Will the Leader of the House outline what process will be in place to allow the House to scrutinise the Government’s nomination for the next European Commissioner?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the Prime Minister in this House and my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in the House of Lords yesterday made it clear that while this nomination is one for the Prime Minister, it is open to the scrutiny Committees of the House to request, as they could on any nomination for commissioner, that evidence be given to them. It will be a matter for the nominee concerned as to how to respond.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) raised the case of Keith Williams in Justice questions. He was released early from prison by the Parole Board, completely and utterly against the wishes and views of the victim of his terrible crimes. May we have a debate on how we can make sure that the victim’s views are paramount in the criminal justice system, so that before anybody is released on parole, moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence, the views of the victim are taken fully into account and put at the top of the priority list? Such a debate would also showcase the fantastic work of organisations such as Families Fighting for Justice.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case very well. I will ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to respond directly to him. I am sure he will find further opportunities for a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment or elsewhere, in order to raise the issues properly. I hope he recognises that, through legislation and other action, the Government have sought continuously to put the interests of victims at the forefront of the criminal justice system.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As secretary of the all-party group on steel and metal related industry, I have received a response from the Exchequer Secretary declining to meet us. Given that this week, in announcing the devastating loss of 400 jobs in south Wales, Karl Köhler, head of Tata Steel Europe, cited problems with Government policy, such as business rates and delays in getting help for energy intensive industries, will the Leader of the House prevail on his colleague to meet the all-party steel and metal related industry group?

[Mr Lansley]

I was aware, of course, of the very sad loss of jobs at Port Talbot and sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituents. I will discuss the issue with my ministerial colleagues. There may be a question about where ministerial responsibility lies: given what the hon. Lady has said, it probably lies more with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills than directly with the Treasury.

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

This week is create UK week, giving us the opportunity to reflect on the £70 billion-a-year contribution to the economy from the creative industries. In my constituency there is an ever-expanding creative industry, providing some 1,200 jobs in the video games sector in my area alone. May we have a debate about the contribution of creative industries to our economy?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the important role played by our creative industries, including the video games sector, in our economic recovery. Indeed, I think that was illustrated by the replies given by my colleagues to the preceding questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The creative sector is worth £71 billion to our economy, with its employment figure growing at five times that of the economy as a whole. It is a great success and we are committed to working with the creative industries to take the strategy forward. Create UK was launched just yesterday in order to make further progress, and I hope my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is such a leading location for firms in the sector, will be able to fully benefit from the strategy.

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

Last week’s Sunday Express reported that a suspected terrorist was freely supporting and encouraging young Britons to travel to Syria to fight jihad. May we please have a debate in Government time on what additional powers we may need to introduce for returning radicalised young people who have been fighting jihad in Syria and Iraq?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand completely the seriousness and importance of the point raised by the hon. Lady. There will be Home Office questions on Monday. We also intend to introduce powers under the Serious Crime Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords, relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to acts concerned with terrorism, preparation for terrorism and similar. I know I may be asking the hon. Lady to wait a little, but this House will have an opportunity to debate that Bill in due course.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Salisbury cathedral’s repair programme has been ongoing for 27 years at a cost of £1 million a year. Therefore, I am very pleased to know that the Government’s first world war centenary repair fund offers an opportunity to provide a boost to the work at the cathedral. Will the Leader of the House make time for a ministerial statement on the outcome of the application, so that Salisbury cathedral can make use of that much-needed funding?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very glad that we have been able to give support to our cathedrals, which are a wonderful aspect of our overall heritage, especially as they are often the focus of commemorative events. Indeed, I was able to be with the Royal Anglian Regiment at a commemorative event in Ely cathedral just the Sunday before last. The cathedrals that have been successful in securing grants from the first world war centenary repair fund will be announced in a written statement on Thursday 10 July. I will of course ensure that my hon. Friend’s comments are noted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on transport connectivity in the north of England? This week, there was a suggestion—thankfully, a misleading one—that Denton and Reddish South stations may be forced to close. A review of the northern franchise is coming up. Frankly, it is no good for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come up to Manchester to talk up improved connectivity between the city regions in the north of England if transport cuts make it more difficult to get to those city regions.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can talk about transport cuts at a time when we have an unprecedented scale of Network Rail investment in the largest rail investment programme since the Victorian era. What he said was equally misplaced in that it is absolutely appropriate, at the same time as we are investing to try to deliver improvements in the existing rail network, for the Chancellor to express his views about what the vision might be for further developments in connectivity in the years ahead.

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

Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and I attended an export fair run by UK Trade & Investment at Ripon race course. It was timed to coincide with the increased international attention on our area with the Tour de France departing from Yorkshire this weekend. The event was designed to encourage more companies to be exporters. May we please have a debate to consider the importance of export growth in our long-term economic plan and rebalancing our economy, and what more can be done to support British companies seeking to export?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that he and our hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) are actively supporting businesses and UKTI, working together to achieve that. Other business organisations were no doubt party to it as well. We do need—and, happily, we are seeing—a growth in exports. Indeed, I note that the greatest growth in exports has been in the west midlands. Off the back of the Tour de France and the focus on the area’s attractions, Yorkshire might be able to come forward in encouraging people to undertake more exporting and get to the front of the pack.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on support for NHS trusts, such as my Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which have difficulties in recruiting key staff? It is vital that essential services are maintained, and the debate might consider the creation of a central pool of senior clinical staff who can help out at short notice.

[Mr Lansley]

I will draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health to that idea. As I know from past experience, it is sometimes possible to have collaborative arrangements between NHS trusts precisely to ensure that there is such support. The NHS works together, and it is the job of NHS England to ensure that it does so in order to deliver safe and effective care to patients. Where that is at risk in any location, it is important to provide support.

I am delighted that under this Government, because of the resources we are putting in and the savings we are making in administration—delivering £5.5 billion savings on administration in this Parliament, with recurring savings of £1.5 billion a year thereafter—we have been able to have some 16,000 more clinical staff and some 19,000 fewer administrative staff. That shift into front-line care is at the heart of enabling trusts, such as my hon. Friend’s, to deliver services in future.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

This week, finally and at long last, the European Court of Human Rights has made a sensible decision about something. Given that it has this week decided that the ban on Islamic veils in France breaches no one’s human rights, will the Leader of the House or another Minister make a statement to the House next week to say that Her Majesty’s Government intend to introduce such legislation in this country? We will never have a fully functioning, fully integrated multicultural society if growing numbers of our citizens go around with their faces covered.

[Mr Lansley]

I noted that decision by the Court, but part of it was about the issue of subsidiarity and the right of countries to make such decisions for themselves. In that context I do not anticipate a statement by a Minister in the form my hon. Friend seeks.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 207 on excessive hospital car-parking charges?

[That this House notes that hospital parking charges can be a huge burden on patients and visitors at a vulnerable time in their lives; further notes that Nottingham City Hospital and Queen’s Medical Centre charge £4.00 for one hour of parking, that Royal Free Hospital, Guy’s Hospital, St Thomas’s Hospital, and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital charge £6.00 for two hours of parking, that Royal Free Hospital, Guy’s Hospital, St Thomas’s Hospital and South Bristol Community Hospital charge £12.00 for four hours of parking, that Royal Free Hospital charges £72 for one day of parking and £504.00 for one week of parking; recognises that these charges are disproportionate and onerous for patients; therefore condemns these hospitals and others which charge similar fees; and urges the Government to consider ways to reduce the cost of hospital parking.]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that 109 colleagues from all sides of the House have signed a draft Back-Bench motion on the issue. Despite Government guidance stating that hospital car parking charges should be fair and proportionate, 80% of NHS hospitals in England continue to charge their staff, visitors and patients extortionate amounts to park on their sites. May we have a statement on the issue and will he do all he can to deal with it?

[Mr Lansley]

I have read my hon. Friend’s early-day motion and had the pleasure of hearing him and colleagues make their application for a debate to the Backbench Business Committee. It will be for that Committee to determine whether a debate should take place. I will say—I freely admit that this is a personal view—that although there is a hospital in my constituency with very high parking charges, I am concerned about deciding simply to subsidise or pay for car parking, as happens in Wales. This is money that would otherwise be available for clinical—[Interruption.] It is a simple fact that that money would otherwise be available for clinical services. When the NHS in Wales is underperforming on standards and achievements relative to England, one has to reflect on whether that subsidy could form part of the problem.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Earlier this year, Argentina absurdly started issuing a 50 peso note with a map on it of the Falklands Islands, in the colours of the Argentine flag. Far more sensibly, in contrast, earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a new £1 coin, which will be more secure and reaches back to the heritage of our coinage. May we have a statement from the Treasury as to whether the tails side of that new £1 coin could feature the coat of arms of the Falkland Islands and of other overseas territories, in the same way as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland feature?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was too self-effacing to draw to the attention of the House that he is himself a renowned vexillologist.

[Mr Lansley]

Indeed, Mr Speaker. I will draw my hon. Friend’s views to the attention of the Treasury. I forget the precise title of his role in this regard, but the Chancellor is responsible for the Royal Mint, and there is an advisory committee to help him in that role, so it may be a matter of taking independent advice rather than that of the Government imposing their own view.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 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 30 June—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Chaos and Waste at the Department for Work and Pensions” on an Opposition motion. I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.

Tuesday 1 July—Motion to approve a procedural resolution relating to the Finance Bill, followed by motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 1).

Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 3 July—General debate on protecting children in conflict, followed by a general debate on social mobility and child poverty strategy. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session.

Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 July will include:

Monday 7 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on universal credit implementation, followed by a debate on the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Universal Credit implementation: monitoring DWP’s performance in 2012-13, 5th Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 1209, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as a 2nd Special Report, HC 426, Session 2014-15; and Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in England in 2014-20, 7th report from the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 745, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as 7th Special Report, HC 1008, 2013-14.]

Tuesday 8 July—Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill.

Wednesday 9 July—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 10 July—General debate, subject to be announced.

Friday 11 July—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 July will be:

Thursday 3 July—Debate on the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the UK’s response to extremism and instability in north and west Africa, followed by a debate on the sixth report of the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the written statement today from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, informing the House of the publication on 17 July of the report of Lady Justice Hallett on the on-the-runs administrative scheme.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for that announcement.

Later today, we will debate the commemoration of the centenary of the first world war. We must never forget the monumental sacrifice of those who gave their lives, including Thomas Neely, a Victoria Cross recipient from Seacombe in my constituency, who died less than 50 days before the armistice.

Andy Coulson’s conviction this week has raised serious questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. He and his staff were warned that some brave journalists were writing openly about Coulson’s behaviour, but he carried on anyway and brought a criminal into the heart of No. 10. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Prime Minister was not just ignorant about Andy Coulson, but wilfully negligent? Does he support calls for uniformity of vetting for senior Downing street advisers? Will he ask the Prime Minister to return to the House to make a statement, including telling us if he was advised by any senior civil servants in No. 10 against employing Andy Coulson?

Next week, we will be discussing the Finance Bill. The Leader of the House told me last week that everything is going very well, so will he explain why the Chancellor’s plan to cut the deficit is already running four years late and why he is borrowing £190 billion more than he planned? While he is at it, will he tell us why the Chancellor boasts about unemployment rates, while a report this week shows that new job creation has slumped and 60% of those on benefits are actually in work? Is not the truth that this is the slowest recovery for 100 years and that the vast majority of people are just not feeling the benefit?

The crisis at the Department for Work and Pensions just gets worse and the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our society just get harder. On Friday, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee condemned the personal independence payment as a “fiasco”. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions sounded increasingly deluded as he defended his calamitous universal credit programme. Yesterday, it was revealed that universal credit could cost the public purse another £750 million because the DWP has not worked out how to integrate it with free school meals.

The Work and Pensions Secretary told the House:

“Universal credit is on track to roll out against the timetable set out last year.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 9.]

However, at the current rate of progress, will it not take a staggering 1,052 years before this programme is complete?

Universal credit is in chaos. The Secretary of State has lost control of his Department. Given that the Leader of the House is such an expert on “pausing” costly and calamitous reforms, does he accept that the Government should now pause universal credit?

This Government are completely out of touch and completely unable to deliver on any of their promises. When they came to office, the vast majority of people could see a doctor within 48 hours; now one in four cannot do so within a week. They promised a bigger Army for a safer Britain, but the former Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that the Army is not in a “fit state” to deal with current threats.

It is no wonder that two parliamentary private secretaries resigned from the Government this week to spend more time with their marginal constituencies—and the Government are in such disarray that their Departments did not even notice that they had gone. The Government have a Tourism Minister who declared from Brazil that people without passports should holiday at home, they have a Health Minister who thinks it “exciting” that the Government have lost control of the national health service, and they have a Prime Minister who claimed that he had done nothing wrong, but apologised so profusely that he very nearly wrecked the high-profile criminal trial of his mates at News International.

This week, I received an invitation to the Commons versus Lords shooting competition. I hope that the Commons team does not include any Ministers, because if it does, they will end up shooting themselves in the foot—or they might even end up shooting each other.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister sent the England football team a recorded good luck message, and just over a week later, the team crashed out of the World cup. With the European Council upon us and the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker looking increasingly inevitable, may I suggest one last desperate tactic that the Prime Minister could use to stop him? Forget about the Luxembourg compromise; the Prime Minister should send him a good luck message.

When it comes to negotiating in Europe, the Prime Minister should learn a lot from the World cup. Do not let expectations get the better of you; do not underestimate the power of smaller countries; and biting—or, indeed, backbiting—is never a good idea.

[Mr Lansley]

As the shadow Leader of the House said, we are rightly having a debate today to commemorate the events of the great war, and I am glad that we are able to do so just two days before the centenary of the events that precipitated that calamity. I hope that, during today’s debate, we shall hear from Members who represent constituencies throughout the country whose constituents are planning a wide range of commemorations over the next four years. For my part, I remember talking to my grandfather about the second battle of Ypres. He was at Hill 60, where Lieutenant Harold Woolley was the first member of the Territorial Army to earn a Victoria Cross. I think that all of us, through our families, have recollections of those who were there—including those who were injured or, indeed, lost—and today’s debate will give us an important opportunity to commemorate that sacrifice.

I am afraid I must tell the shadow Leader of the House that, although the jacket has got brighter, the jokes have got a bit duller. It is a shame. They are better than my jokes, though.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I will wear a black jacket next week!

[Mr Lansley]

No, please don’t. As we move to summer, it is a great step forward.

In earlier sessions of business questions, the shadow Leader of the House had a thing going. It was called “mind the gap”, and it sort of disappeared. [Interruption.] Or was it there? If so, I missed it. I was wondering whether it would put in an appearance. It seemed to me that it was probably better to mind the gap than to throw someone in front of the train, which appears to be the latest suggestion. I am not quite sure who is in charge of Labour party policy, and I am not sure that it really matters that much, but the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) seems to be suggesting that no one else needs to be thrown in front of the train, because the Leader of the Opposition is already standing in front of the train and will be the subject of the train crash when it comes. I think that is a rather sad reflection on what the hon. Lady’s colleagues feel about the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

I listened to Prime Minister’s questions yesterday; I think the Leader of the Opposition asked exactly the same question and got absolutely the right answer. If we look back at the evidence that was taken and the conclusions reached by Lord Justice Leveson, we see that he made it very clear that the Prime Minister received those assurances and acted on the basis of them at the time. If he had known then what we know now, it would have been very different. He has made it clear that he gave Andy Coulson a second chance and he regrets that he did, because it was, as it turned out, a misjudgment.

The hon. Lady asked about security clearance. Well, these are matters for the civil service, and the Leveson report is very clear, as was the evidence given by Gus O’Donnell, that it was a matter determined by civil servants, and rightly so, in relation to identifying where there is any risk.

The hon. Lady asked about the economy, which is good—I am glad she did. We are reducing the deficit we inherited from the Opposition. Their recession—Labour’s recession—cost every household in this country £3,000. We are cutting the deficit. It is down by a third already, and it will be down by a half by the end of the financial year. Two million private sector jobs have been created—[Interruption.] I am afraid that any amount of wriggling will not get out of the simple fact that jobs have been created in this country on an unprecedented basis, not least because small businesses are being created on an unprecedented scale—400,000 more small businesses and five new private sector jobs for every job lost in the public sector—as we are taking the necessary steps to reduce the waste and inefficiency that we found in the public sector under the last Government. That includes in the Department for Work and Pensions.

It was Labour who presided over the tax credit disasters, and Members all across the House in previous Parliaments will remember how many of their constituents found that the tax credit system was simply not working for them. Fraud and error were costing the welfare system £30 billion and there was no control on the welfare budget, and now, we have capped the welfare budget and Labour is in no position to criticise that. It will try on Monday and it will fail, because it cannot criticise the programme of welfare reform that is delivering on capping the costs of welfare while focusing resources on those who are most in need. That is what failed under the last Government. Costs were out of control and those often in the greatest need were not getting the greatest help.

At the Department of Health, I was only too aware of that waste, for example. In this Parliament, we will have taken £1.5 billion a year—in total in this Parliament, I think that the figure is about £5 billion—out of the administration cost of the NHS. It is because we have cut the number of administrators by 19,000 that we can increase, as we have, the number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals by 16,000, including over 1,000 more GPs than three years ago. The number of GPs per 100,000 in the population is now higher than it was at the time of the last election.

Overall, I noted that the shadow Leader of the House now no longer has some of the questions that she had last week, because we have presented this week two more of the Bills that were announced in the Queen’s Speech, so eight out of the 11 Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech are under way. She asked when we would have the first Second Reading. We are going to have the first Second Reading of one of those Bills taking place—on modern slavery—and I am looking forward to us proceeding successfully with the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Youth unemployment in my constituency in May 2010 stood at the scandalously high figure of 430. Last month, it was reduced to 200, showing that the coalition Government had reduced youth unemployment by half. We cannot be complacent and there is still more to be done, but can we have a debate in Government time on the measures that are being taken to improve apprenticeships to provide new opportunities for work and to encourage young people to understand that opportunities are out there, rather than a life on benefits, as was delivered by the last Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he says about his constituency is welcome and a good example of what is happening across the country, with the youth claimant count down by 129,000 in a year—the largest reduction in a year since 1997. The number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is at its lowest in five years. The 1.7 million apprenticeships in this Parliament thus far are one of the central things that have made a big and positive difference, as has the Youth Contract and work experience more generally.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 163, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members?

[That this House expresses its utmost disgust with and condemnation of Global Vision College, Manchester, otherwise known as OLC and Manchester School of Economics, which has stolen £2,500 in fees from a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, refuses to return it, has failed to answer successive letters from the right hon. Member, and is guilty of the crime of larceny; calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Home Secretary and Greater Manchester Police to investigate these swindlers; and warns everyone in Manchester and more widely to have nothing to do with this disreputable organisation.]

It refers to the swindle carried out by a so-called college in Manchester that keeps changing its name and location in an effort to evade responsibility. It has stolen £2,500 in advance fees from a constituent of mine, which had been sent of behalf of relatives who were then not able to take up their places. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask those responsible, who are named in my motion, to look into the issue and respond to me, and will he consider a debate on the matter, which is quite a wide problem across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and at the Home Office, in so far as that is also relevant, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue raised in his early-day motion. He will have noted the steps that the Government have taken to close down some 400 bogus colleges, and I am sure that he noted the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration earlier this week about the further steps being taken to ensure the integrity of our higher education system.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

In the light of the outstanding research referred to in the report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on mitochondrial transfer, and Professor Robert Winston’s concerns at the Government’s intention to introduce those techniques before they are known to be safe—as highlighted in early-day motion 122 that stands in my name and is garnering significant support—will the Leader of the House do all he can to ensure that Members who are profoundly concerned about the safety of three-parent techniques, whether or not they oppose them in principle, will be given the option to express that view when the matter comes before the House?

[That this House notes the comments of Professor Robert Winston reported in the Independent on Sunday on 15 June 2014 on the premature introduction of mitochondrial replacement techniques; urges the Government to heed his warning that a great deal more research in as many animal models as possible ought to be undertaken prior to such techniques being approved; further notes his view that full and far-reaching assessments must be conducted as to the potential risks to children born as a result of the procedures; and calls on the Department of Health to delay bringing the relevant regulations before Parliament until the international scientific community and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have declared the techniques safe.]

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. As she knows, mitochondrial donation techniques can give women who carry severe mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have children without passing on devastating genetic disorders. We consulted on the draft regulations that would be required to allow such treatment between February and May. We are considering the responses and will announce our plans as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will understand that such regulations would be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament and require approval.

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

My constituent, David McIntyre, served his country for more than 11 years as a soldier in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. As a result of events in his service, he has post-traumatic stress, depression and been assessed as being at risk of suicide. Despite his mental state, he faces extradition to the United States next week to answer charges, which he denies, relating to a commercial matter. Earlier this week, I wrote to the Home Secretary requesting an urgent meeting to discuss this matter, but to date I have received no reply. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to respond to my request for a meeting?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, be helpful to the hon. Lady and contact the Home Secretary. I am grateful that she has written to the Home Office, so that it has details of this case, and I will endeavour to ensure that she has an opportunity to meet the Home Secretary or the relevant Minister.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

On 9 June, I received a written answer from NHS England via the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), stating that no patients from the south-west had been sent for gamma knife treatment at University College London hospitals.



After pressing NHS England further, on Monday 23 June, I had another written answer saying exactly the opposite, admitting that it had paid for treatment of those patients. May we have a debate on the need for absolute honesty and accurate accounting from NHS England when answering Members’ questions, as I am not the only Member who has been fobbed off with inaccurate replies?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wants to reply to the questions. I have no doubt he does, but it is my responsibility, and it is Ministers’ responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their responses to Members. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Public Administration Committee is examining the issue of the accountability of public bodies and their responses to Members’ questions. Notwithstanding all that, it is important for NHS England to ensure that it provides my hon. Friend with accurate information. I will ensure, with the Department of Health, that that is the case.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement about the Modern Slavery Bill. He is aware that there is substantial support on both sides of the House for the measure. Will he therefore guesstimate for us when it will complete its process here before going to the other place, even if this House tweaks it, hopefully, in a couple of important respects?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I do know how much support the Bill has and I appreciate its importance. I am grateful for the work that the right hon. Gentleman and others did during pre-legislative scrutiny to enable the Bill to come forward in the positive fashion that it has. It would probably be unwise of me to engage in speculation about the timing of the passage of legislation. It may even be regarded as presumptuous, as the House needs to consider the Bill and we need to make decisions about the timing of consideration beyond the Committee stage.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the renewal of rail franchises? The Southend to Fenchurch Street line used to be known as the misery line. It is now known as the happy line thanks to c2c, which should have its franchise renewed. That is in stark contrast with Abellio Greater Anglia, whose service is absolutely lousy and whose trains are clapped out, as its managing director will find out in two weeks when he travels on one with me.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Many years ago, when it was probably a bit more of a misery, I used to travel daily into Fenchurch Street on that line and so was familiar with it. Happily it is better, as he described. He will know that the competition for the Essex Thameside franchise is ongoing and an announcement about the award of the franchise is expected shortly. A new directly awarded franchise has been negotiated by the Government with the incumbent, Abellio Greater Anglia, for 27 months between the end of the current franchise in July and the start of the next competed franchise in October 2016. As is the case with many other franchises, worthwhile and significant benefits to passengers arise from new franchises. The competition for the next franchise will begin in spring next year, and a consultation will be carried out to inform the specification for that.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Wonga’s appalling deception and dishonesty has been laid bare. May we have a statement from the Chancellor on why that company or any of its directors should ever hold a credit licence again, or is the Government’s priority and focus the protection of Tory party friends and donors?

[Mr Lansley]

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is uncalled for and inaccurate. He knows that. Members on both sides of the House will have been shocked by what they saw and the Financial Conduct Authority has taken important action on the matter. I am not in a position to say any more than what the FCA has said so far, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury, in consultation with the FCA, whether they are in a position to offer a written statement to the House.

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

Last week I attended the “working together” conference organised by National Grid, EmployAbility and Round Oak school in my constituency. The aim of the conference was to share best practice in recruitment and employment practices, and to promote the widespread benefits of employing those with additional learning needs and disabilities. May we have a debate about the importance of ensuring that those with special needs are supported in their search for work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to attend that conference. It reflects the fact that many of our leading employers across the country, large and small, are recognising the opportunities to support those with learning needs and disabilities in work. In July last year the Prime Minister launched the “disability confident” campaign, which has reached over 1,100 local and national employers throughout the country, increasing the confidence of employers in employing disabled people. I am very familiar with this in my own constituency over the years, through the work of the Papworth Trust. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that the point my hon. Friend made will be much shared among Members and he may find opportunities, not least with other Members, to seek a debate of that kind at some point in the future.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

In the light of Mr Justice Saunders’ comments in the Coulson trial, may we have an urgent debate to publish the legal advice given by the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister, who may have inadvertently placed himself above the law?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that successive Governments have never published legal advice offered by the Attorney-General, nor commented on it. All I can say is that what the Prime Minister said the day before yesterday was not intended in any way to prejudice any aspect of the completion of the trial.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that there was insufficient time last week to consider my amendments on Sunday trading. Given that the current law is absurd and prevents land-based companies from competing with the internet, protects the interests of Tesco Express more than any other company in the country and lumps garden centres in, many of which are small businesses and should not be prevented from opening for longer hours when they are often one-man bands, can he find time for us to have a proper debate about these absurdities so the House can consider whether further amendments need to be made?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall the answer I gave at previous business questions about the Government’s position, which is that we feel we are currently striking the right balance in the law on Sunday trading. I know that the debate on consideration of the Consumer Rights Bill was abbreviated—it was short—but there was an opportunity for points to be made in the course of it. Of course, if my hon. Friend wishes to bring forward any proposals, he can seek an Adjournment debate to raise issues in the House.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the letters to on-the-runs have aroused great anxiety in Northern Ireland and that efforts should be made to ensure that those letters cannot be allowed to let people evade justice, as appears to have been the case for one person. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of the statement on 17 July, will the Leader of the House set aside parliamentary time if necessary to legislate on the annulment of those ministerial letters to on-the-runs?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to prejudice that statement and I do not think I can comment on his question at this stage. I think it is sufficient for now that the statement will be on 17 July, and separately in this House the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is undertaking its own inquiry, which I can see is detailed, into all the matters surrounding the on-the-runs.

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

May we have an early debate on childhood obesity? Experts today have advised parents to cut fruit juice out of their children’s diets, after a generation of them have been told that fruit juice is healthy. This is somewhat confusing, and perhaps we should be focusing more on exercise for youngsters born with an iPhone between their hands, and stress that watching tennis at Wimbledon is fun, but getting out there and playing it is even more fun.

[Mr Speaker]

I second that proposition.

[Mr Lansley]

The House will recall that we have rightly had many opportunities to debate childhood obesity. My understanding is that the advice was that fruit juice intake should be moderated, rather than excluded from children’s diets. It is important to moderate the intake of all foods in a child’s diet to make sure it is balanced. We are looking for a proper balance between calories in and calories out, and the more we exercise, the easier it is to strike that balance. On a positive note, the latest data have shown a reduction in childhood obesity among pre-school children, and that needs to be sustained. It is only one positive step in what needs to be a long journey to reduce childhood obesity.

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

Trade union officials at the Cumbernauld office of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were told yesterday that the regional post-room where 40 people are employed has been earmarked for closure in March 2015, but the decision has yet to be taken. However, they were also told that 170 new jobs are to be created there. Can we have an early debate on this issue so that the Government can clarify for the House the plans for both job losses and job creation in Cumbernauld?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, not least from the answer the Prime Minister gave to a question yesterday, the HMRC is rightly trying to ensure that it is as efficient as possible in collecting tax and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. In the process, sometimes, changes inevitably have to be made to the structure of the business it undertakes. However, I will ask Treasury Ministers to respond to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as there is any particular information relating to Cumbernauld.

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

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or a statement on civil partnerships, which currently can be dissolved in only a certain number of courts? Only barristers are allowed to make representations, and for a constituent of mine, going to London adds costs. We should be looking for equality of treatment and allow such cases to be dealt with at county courts.

[Mr Lansley]

To be as helpful as I can, I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to my hon. Friend on this issue. However, other Members may also be interested in it, so I will check with him whether there is a way he can inform them about the issue she raises.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Peter Oborne, writing in today’s Telegraph, says that he warned the then future Prime Minister that he would be

“making an extremely worrying statement about the type of government he plans to lead if he allows Coulson anywhere near Downing Street”.

Given these widespread concerns expressed at the time, may we have a statement on the vetting processes used at the time and now, so that we make sure that vetting is of the highest status that can possibly be achieved?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit confused. The vetting process is a security vetting process, which is quite distinct from the choice that the Prime Minister rightly makes about whom he employs as his advisers, including in special adviser positions. Those are not the same process and should not be regarded as such. However, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday and as is reflected in the evidence to Leveson, a process of inquiry was of course undertaken when Andy Coulson was first appointed director of communications to the Conservative party. At that time and subsequently, questions were asked and assurances were received, which unfortunately led to—as we completely understand—the Prime Minister giving Mr Coulson a second chance, but it proved to be misplaced.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, can we at some point have a debate on Europe that would enable those of us who are inherently pro-European to make the point to our colleagues in Europe that, if members of the Council of Ministers are unable to make provision for and find a position for countries such as the UK that do not wish to have the euro and are never going to be part of the eurozone—if we cannot be found an honoured place in Europe, and are unable to protect the inherent national interests of the City of London—inevitably, they are starting to push this country nearer and nearer to the exit door?

[Mr Lansley]

We often have debates on this issue. My right hon. Friend is right, both in relation to the statement next week and subsequent debates, that it will be immensely important for us to set out clearly that we must have a reformed relationship with the European Union, one where we can be clear that this country’s interests can be protected. As one who also supports our membership of the European Union, I would say that our national interests have to be protected—the Prime Minister and this coalition Government have done that on issues such as banking union, the EU budget and the fiscal pact, where the Prime Minister exercised our veto. However, we can also promote our interests through membership of the European Union. That is equally part of this debate, and we can promote those interests by completing the single market, promoting competition, deregulation in Europe and ensuring that the EU budget is used effectively to support growth across the EU.

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

On top of the unfair treatment Hull receives in council funding and other funding that has been cut, this week the Chancellor forgot to mention that Hull is at the end of the HS3 route he was proposing and now we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about a golden triangle between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield. In the light of the snubs the Government keep giving Hull, may we have a debate on this? We are doing our very best, getting the city of culture and Siemens into the city, but those are victories that are home-grown, not enabled by the Government.

[Mr Lansley]

That is uncharacteristically churlish on the part of the hon. Lady; the Government have been part of that, for example, being part of the negotiation with Siemens. The Chancellor talked at the beginning of this week about the vision for the future and greater east-west connectedness and, as she acknowledged, what he was talking about included Hull as part of that potential connectedness.

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

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), may we have a debate on the consistency of official advice on nutrition—and indeed on whether we need advice on nutrition at all—given the confusion that will inevitably be caused in the minds of the public following today’s advice that we should not be drinking fruit juice and instead should be drinking water? We have always been told that drinking fruit juice and was part of our “five a day”, but now we are told that we should be drinking water. May we have an early debate about whether we need such nanny state advice?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will have heard what I said in my reply a moment ago, but the recommendations published today are in draft form. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is inviting comments on the scientific aspects of its report, and it will consider those and finalise the report later this year or early next year. I hope that my hon. Friend and other Members will have an opportunity at some point during that process to express their views about how we can best achieve that good advice to parents about the diet they provide to their children.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Other countries do not allow their football academies to take in foreign youngsters under the age of 18. Our home nations do allow that, partly because they want to feed those players into the Premier League, but that means that a lot of our players get dismissed at 16 and 17. The foreign countries are still in the World cup, but we are not. May we have a debate about the future of youth football in this country and the investment the Football Association is putting into our academy structures?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may be in his place next Thursday when Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be here and this may be an interesting point for him to raise with them. If he will forgive me, I will not venture too far into this area. I know that the Backbench Business Committee is considering whether to schedule a debate on non-league football. There is widespread interest in the House in football governance and football matters more generally, and perhaps this is something that may be considered on a Back-Bench basis as a priority for debate.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituents in Shrewton have recently drawn my attention to a tweet from the Highways Agency that showed that there were no problems with the A303 following the summer solstice at Stonehenge last weekend. When they checked the camera online themselves, the footage was unavailable. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement soon from the relevant Minister, so that my constituents can clarify whether the Highways Agency is deliberately switching off that important camera, which is a source of data that are highly relevant to decisions in Government?

[Mr Lansley]

This is a sensitive point on the A303, and I can see the point that my hon. Friend is making. I do not know the position, so I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to him.

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

This is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, but can he give us a date or clarify when the Government will honour their promise to introduce legislation to regulate the Football League? We still have an ongoing saga in Coventry, and the latest one is over Birmingham’s ownership. Is it not about time that this issue was cleared up?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he was not making a criticism of me. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the matter, and he heard what I said about questions next Thursday. None the less, my recollection is that Ministers said not that they would bring forward legislation, but that if football governance, the Football Association and other authorities did not take the necessary steps to reform governance in football, they would consider introducing legislation. They did not make a commitment to do so.

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

Professor Elliott’s final report on food safety and security, which was set up following the horsemeat scandal, is expected soon. It will have great implications for shorter food supply chains, traceability and labelling. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate in Government time on these issues once the report has been adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, as my hon. Friend would expect, wait to see what the Elliott review has to say. No doubt my hon. Friends in DEFRA will want to tell the House how the Government propose to respond to it. I cannot promise Government time. As I have often said to the House on the allocation of time in the Chamber, the great majority of Government time has to be devoted to legislation. A significant part of the Government time that was previously available for debate has been handed over to the Backbench Business Committee, so that it can determine where Back Benchers feel the priority lies.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on timely responses to parliamentary questions? Since 4 June, I have tabled 24 parliamentary questions, the majority of which are named day questions on the issue of passports, and not one has had a substantive reply to date. Is the relevant Minister perhaps abroad?

[Mr Lansley]

It will not be long before I report to the House on the performance as regards parliamentary questions in the previous Session. I hope to do that before the summer recess. That may give Members an opportunity to raise points on the issue, not least here at business questions. On the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised with the Home Office, it sounds like the named day requirement was met with a holding answer. I will ask the Department when it can give him the substantive answer for which he is looking.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I have been a long-time advocate for elected mayors, and I was pleased to hear the Chancellor’s comments on the subject in his speech earlier this week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the Government intend to move forward with that proposal, which would make a significant contribution to delivering our long-term economic plan?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I share the view that elected mayors can make a significant and positive difference; we have seen that, not least in London. The legislation is in place to enable this to happen; the question is whether the political will and public consent are available to push it forward.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that we need a debate on how Andy Coulson got access to highly sensitive material without proper security vetting? That decision was taken by civil servants who did not even bother to consult the Prime Minister. Do the public not have a right to know just how widespread that despicable practice is across Government?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he makes that sort of accusation. It is not that there was no security clearance, but that developed vetting had not taken place, which is a substantially different process. Security clearance is distinct from developed vetting.

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

In the first three months of this year, car insurance premiums fell dramatically, according to the AA, due to legal reforms introduced by the Ministry of Justice to curtail organised whiplash fraud. May we have a debate on measures that the Government have introduced to help consumers and taxpayers—measures such as freezing fuel duties, raising the personal tax-free allowance, scrapping green taxes and enabling local authorities, such as mine in North West Leicestershire, to freeze council tax for a fifth consecutive year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly goes to points that matter a great deal to people. The fall in insurance premiums has been positive, and it is positive that councils across the country have been supported to freeze council tax, which, in many areas, doubled during the life of the previous Government. Relatively low-income households who pay tax have seen £700 come off their tax bill as a consequence of the coalition Government’s commitment to increasing the personal tax allowance. Under Labour plans, fuel duty was due to increase and escalate, but fuel will now be 20p cheaper than it would have been under those plans. There are so many examples of measures that are making a positive difference to people paying their household bills.

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

May we have emergency legislation on compensation and compound interest? We should make Wonga pay out not £2.6 million compensation for unfair practice but, at its own outrageous interest rates of 5,853%, £203 trillion. Perhaps then it would understand the misery that it causes.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the steps that were taken in the previous Session to put a cap on payday lending. We responded to some of the issues. It is important for the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that this perfectly legitimate business is undertaken in a legitimate fashion. When it is not, it is absolutely right that the enforcement action is tough.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has announced that there will be a general debate on the Floor of the House on Thursday 10 July on a topic yet to be announced. Given the recent and important developments in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, the Palestinian Authority area and Egypt, surely the subject needs to be the middle east and north Africa. During such a debate, we could raise concerns about what it says about modern Britain that more of our citizens appear to have signed up for jihad in Syria than have applied to join the Army Reserve.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but that business for the week after next is not only provisional but highly provisional. I will reflect on what he said and make an announcement about the future business next week.

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

In September 2013 the Treasury wrote that Equitable Life policyholders would receive some repayments. My constituents are dying, sadly, and are very elderly, and they have not received a penny. Will the Leader of the House ask a Treasury Minister to come to the House and explain this wholly unacceptable delay?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friends at the Treasury to respond to the hon. Lady on that. I will take an interest and ensure that I see the response. If they need to correspond with Members more generally on the subject, I will ask them to consider that, too.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

There appears to be some slow movement in getting passports to the Salvi family, my surrogate family who are trapped in India. They have now been told that they may have to travel 900 miles to Delhi to the high commission for an interview, even though that is not a legal requirement. Please may we have a statement on the action that the Home Secretary is taking to get all the surrogate children home from India?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady knows from exchanges that we have had here, and from when the Home Secretary and the Minister have been here, intense action is being taken by the Home Office to ensure that it meets the requirements of applicants for passports and travel documents. However, there will be no prejudice to proper rigour in the scrutiny of applications, and of course in some countries that means that people are required to travel to where the appropriate staff are to undertake that scrutiny. I shall ask my colleagues particularly to look at the case raised by the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the responsibility gap faced by British Transport and Home Office police when they find an individual in emotional and mental crisis attempting suicide? They take them to A and E and are told that because the person does not have a mental illness, they will not be admitted. The individual’s life is at great risk and they have committed no crime, yet no one seems to take responsibility for giving them support and assistance during their emotional crisis. Can we look at that gap?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I shall ask the Department of Health and the Home Office to look at that. My recollection is that considerable work is being done looking carefully at the interaction between policing services and NHS services, particularly in sensitive areas relating to mental health and those suffering any kind of mental health problems—[Interruption.] No, I understand, but from the NHS point of view, with what it is presented with, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between those who have a mental illness and those who have symptoms. It is fair for the hon. Lady, and for us, to ask the NHS to explain how it responds. Saying, “You don’t have an illness, so you are not our problem” is not the way the NHS often responds. It responds by saying, “You are experiencing symptoms”—which people may well be—“and the question is whether they are treatable.” If they are not treatable, they may be something that requires support more from the local authority than from the NHS.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the arrogance of this Government, who have a Prime Minister who dispenses with normal staff vetting procedures, a Chancellor who refuses to debate the merits of an audit of manifestos by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, a Health Secretary who deems it acceptable to make announcements on patient safety to the media and has to be dragged to the House, and a Work and Pensions Secretary who is determined to push through his welfare reforms, regardless of the mounting evidence of their chaos and the untold harm to very vulnerable people in society?

[Mr Lansley]

On every point that the hon. Lady mentions she is completely wrong. I shall not go through them all, but to suggest that the Prime Minister somehow dispensed with security vetting is completely wrong. The hon. Lady can read the Leveson report, which sets out very clearly that civil servants, not the Prime Minister, were responsible for that decision, so her point was completely unfair. She referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who made a written ministerial statement to the House; that is informing the House.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Further to the earlier remarks by the Leader of the House, may we have a debate on better regulation and the payday lender parasites, Wonga, whose sending of threatening letters from non-existent law firms to 45,000 customers is nothing short of a disgrace?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree; it was disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said to other Members about discussing with my colleagues at the Treasury how they might inform the House about the response to that situation. Of course, the case was announced only yesterday by the Financial Conduct Authority, so we will have to see what Ministers’ views are on the action that has been taken.

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

The Leader of the House should not be celebrating a 0.3% reduction in childhood obesity when one third of kids are leaving our primary schools overweight or obese. Can we have an urgent debate with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the universal credit programme, which has cost millions of pounds but has not yet reached 6,000 people?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Lady will have heard me say that the latest figures on childhood obesity are a small step in the right direction and, after years in which it was increasing, a very welcome one. It is one step on what needs to be a very long journey to reverse probably two decades of increasing childhood obesity. Regarding a debate on universal credit, the hon. Lady will have noted that the Liaison Committee has set down a debate on the implementation of universal credit for estimates day on Monday week.

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

In my constituency, Park End medical centre, Skelton medical centre and walk-in centre, Guisborough hospital minor injuries unit, and East Cleveland hospital’s minor injuries unit are being closed. After being dragged here on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Health responded to my question by saying that Ministers had already met me about this subject. That is not the case at all. May we have a debate about Health Ministers’ openness and transparency, so that we can discuss how they deal with Members of this House and whether the comments they make are factually correct?

[Mr Lansley]

Ministers at the Department of Health make immense efforts to ensure that they respond fully and accurately to Members of this House and keep the House informed. We are about to hear from the Secretary of State for Health on a very important matter. However, I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, to discuss with him the constituency issues he raises.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 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 23 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Deregulation Bill.

Tuesday 24 June—Remaining stages of the Wales Bill.

Wednesday 25 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be debates on Opposition motions, including on the subject of the private rented sector.

Thursday 26 June—General debate on the programme of commemoration for the first world war.

Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 30 June will include:

Monday 30 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Tuesday 1 July—Motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 1).

Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 3 July—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 26 June will be:

Thursday 26 June—Debate on the Seventh Report of the Administration Committee on migration statistics.

I know that Members from all parts of the House will have been pleased to hear of the honour that was granted to the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dame Dawn Primarolo), and the knighthoods that were awarded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). May I also congratulate Amyas Morse, the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the award of his KCB and all the other people, including those who are in the service of the House, who were granted awards in the Queen’s birthday honours list?

[Ms Eagle]

May I join the Leader of the House in congratulating all those who were honoured in the Queen’s honours list?

Iraq remains under violent siege by Islamic militants who seem set on overthrowing the Government, terrorising the population and dividing the country. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate and hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee their homes. Given that the Prime Minister said yesterday that as many as 400 British citizens could be fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement to be made on how the Government will co-ordinate across Departments to ensure that those fighters do not pose a risk to citizens if they return to the UK?

The Leader of the House has given us the business until two weeks before the summer recess. I calculate that since the end of the Queen’s Speech debate, just half of our time will have been spent on Government business. There is still no sign of the Commons Second Readings of any of the 11 Bills that were announced in the Queen’s Speech. Of the three Bills that are in the Lords, one recycles old promises, one is only four clauses long and the other is only half written because the Government have not finished their consultation on fracking. It is only thanks to Labour that we have had the chance to debate issues as crucial as the passport crisis and rising energy bills and rent. Does the Leader of the House agree with the Education Secretary’s erstwhile adviser that the Prime Minister has

“no priorities, focus or grip”?

Why did it take an Opposition day debate for the Home Secretary to apologise to the nearly 55,000 people whose holidays may have been ruined by her passport shambles? Will the Leader of the House tell us when we might start to see some of his new legislation appear?

Another issue mysteriously missing from the future business is the promised regulations on standardised packaging for tobacco. Health professionals want it, the public want it, all the evidence shows it will help, and Parliament has voted for it, but last week the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is responsible for public health, admitted that it is being blocked by No. 10. Does the hold-up have anything to do with the presence of Australian tobacco lobbyist Lynton Crosby at the heart of No. 10, and when does the Leader of the House intend to bring the regulations forward?

Each week, the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and reality just gets wider. During the flooding crisis in February the Prime Minister promised that money would be no object, but a report released by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Tuesday shows that instead of increasing spending on flood defences, the Government have cut funding by more than 17% in real terms, and that only 5% of the relief money that the Prime Minister promised farmers has been paid. That failure is no surprise when we have an Environment Secretary who does not believe in climate change, a Prime Minister who is more interested in public relations than results, and a chief of staff at No. 10 who has been described by the Education Secretary’s erstwhile adviser as a

“third-rate suck-up…sycophant presiding over a shambolic court.”

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the report in Government time, so that the Environment Secretary can take responsibility for his inaction?

This week’s “mind the gap” watch could go on all day. The Prime Minister promised to lead in Europe, but he is spending his time isolated and ridiculed. He pledged to transform the lives of 120,000 troubled families, but now we have learned that three quarters of those who have been through the programme have not been helped. His broken promise not to have a costly top-down reorganisation of the NHS has led to a GP recruitment crisis, missed cancer targets and more than a trebling in the number of NHS trusts in deficit. Does the Leader of the House agree, once more, with the Education Secretary’s erstwhile adviser that the Prime Minister is

“a sphinx without a riddle”

who

“bumbles from one shambles to another without the slightest sense of purpose”?

I ask the Leader of the House again to arrange for a statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, so that he can explain this Government’s complete inability to see through their promises.

I am sure the whole House would like to congratulate the rowers in the other place on their triumphant victory in the annual parliamentary boat race on the Thames last week. I understand that the Commons boat, which consisted entirely of coalition MPs, promised a great victory, but guess what? They failed to deliver, they did not work well as a team, they rowed slowly and in no particular direction, and as they reached the finishing line, they sank.

[Mr Lansley]

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

The hon. Lady will have heard the statement on Iraq that the Foreign Secretary made on Monday, and he had the further opportunity to respond to Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday. Indeed, the debate that will follow business questions, on the statutory instrument relating to terrorism, will afford an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned, particularly the security threats that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday.

We regard the developments in Iraq as extremely serious, as I am sure the House will agree. Fighting continues in Baqubah and close to Baghdad, as well as in the north of the country. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a violent and brutal group, and we must ensure that we understand what is happening and how it is appropriate for us to respond. The debate on terrorism that is to follow will enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to amplify those points. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a further extension to our emergency support provided to refugees from that fighting, which the House will agree is tremendously important. The Foreign Secretary will continuously review whether it is necessary to make any further statement to the House.

Eleven Bills were announced in the Queen’s Speech—a substantial programme for a short Session. Three of those have been introduced in the Lords and three in this House. I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House said that we have spent only half our time on legislation, because only half the time is available to the Government for legislation. In a four-day week of Chamber consideration in the Commons, two days are available to the Government, one day to the Opposition and one to the Backbench Business Committee. What the hon. Lady says is a statement of the—how shall we put it?—obvious.

Most remarks by the shadow Leader of the House seem to have been constructed around an interview given to The Times by Dominic Cummings. Frankly, I do not agree with anything he said, and I suspect that I am joined by my colleagues wholeheartedly in that thought.

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

Silence!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

No, it is true—we do not agree with Dominic Cummings.

The hon. Lady asked about standardised packaging. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison) made a clear statement to the House, and that has not changed. The Government have decided to proceed with standardised packaging, and in due course we will bring forward the necessary regulation.

The hon. Lady asked about flooding, and we have often had that debate and demonstrated how we are making available additional resources to support flood defences. As I said in previous Business questions, my right hon. Friends in the Government are working on the lessons learned from the recent winter and the exceptional weather events, and on how we can improve resilience and recovery in the future. I hope that before the summer my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will have the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the lessons learned.

The hon. Lady made some assertions about the NHS. We have more GPs now than at the last election, and slightly more GPs per head of population. Health Education England has a mandate to secure 50% of doctors going through training to be GPs, and about £18 billion of efficiency savings have been achieved during this Parliament by this Government, in complete contrast to the Labour party. A pretty telling example is that in the year before the election, when Labour knew there was no money left, the administration costs of the NHS went up by 23% in one year. Since then, and by the end of this Parliament, we will have reduced NHS administration costs by one third, delivering a recurring £1.5 billion a year saving on administration. That is why we have 16,000 more clinical staff in the NHS than at the last election, and 19,000 fewer administrators.

The hon. Lady referred to the debates that the Opposition are bringing forward. Yes of course, but when it comes to the really big issues, they cannot have a debate. They cannot hold a debate on the economy, the deficit, jobs or welfare—Labour has failed to have a positive message on any of those topics because the Government are taking the necessary steps. Our long-term economic plan is working: the deficit is down, growth and jobs are up, unemployment is down, the welfare bill is under control, and this country is going in the right direction.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week to explain why Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, is not a member of the selection panel for the new Clerk of the House? Is there not a conflict of interest in appointing the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) in his place, given that the Clerk is the accounting officer of the House and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is responsible for scrutinising the spending of public money?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend asks an interesting question. I have to confess that I do not know if the point he raises was considered before an invitation was extended to the right hon. Member for Barking. Accounting officers are indeed held to account by the Public Accounts Committee, of which she is the Chair. Whether a conflict of interest therefore arises is something she will wish to consider.

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

The Leader of the House will know that the Serious Fraud Office is a total shambles. It is in all our interests to have an efficient and effective Serious Fraud Office that is properly resourced and properly manned. May we have a debate on the future of the SFO? The real danger of a weak SFO is that it relies far too much on big accountancy firms, such as Grant Thornton and KPMG, and that is not healthy for our democratic or legal process.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman asserts to be the case. The National Crime Agency, legislated for by this Government and now operating successfully, includes among its objectives tackling economic crime and major fraud. The evidence is that the NCA is making a substantial improvement on past arrangements to tackle serious and organised crime.

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

On a number of occasions I have raised failures of child protection services, including, sadly, in my own county of Somerset. However, the proposals in the consultation paper for the part-privatisation of the service are not the answer. I do not know whether this is another of Dominic Cummings’s brilliant wheezes, but will the Secretary of State for Education come to the House and say clearly that that will not happen under a coalition Government?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on plans relating to children’s social care functions has just recently finished. It is not a proposal for privatisation, but a means by which local authorities have the discretion—not a requirement, but a discretion—to delegate additional functions to third parties, including child protection. That will, of course, give rise to opportunities for mutual organisations and charities to bring innovation. We have seen in recent years, in many aspects of public service, that that can be very beneficial.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It was reported this week that the problem of A and E departments being overwhelmed by drunken patients is now not just a weekend phenomenon, but is spreading through the week. There are suggestions that such patients should not be admitted to A and E, but dealt with separately in specialist drunk units. When will the Government accept that Britain’s alcohol problem is serious? May we have a debate on the need for comprehensive legislation to deal with this growing national problem?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the alcohol plan, with which I was directly associated, that was announced by the Home Secretary. When I was Secretary of State for Health, we looked at the issues relating to so-called “drunk tanks”. We did not proceed with them, because of the dangers of mistakenly identifying somebody as drunk in circumstances where they are suffering a clinical condition that requires clinical treatment. As for whether we have an alcohol problem, yes we do. It is not so much about the overall consumption of alcohol, which is coming down—that is positive—but the abusive use of alcohol. Many of the measures in the alcohol action plan focus on that.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on the west coast main line franchise and today’s good news that Virgin will continue to operate its excellent service right up to 2018, which this time will include, we think, a direct service from Blackpool to London, ensuring that hard-working families and others in my constituency can have a direct route from the coastal town to London?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the written ministerial statement that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made to the House this morning about the extension of the west coast main line franchise. Recent further announcements on franchises are bringing positive developments for passengers, which shows that this Government are now using the franchising process positively to benefit passengers.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will recall that a couple of weeks ago I asked him about the mutual defence agreement with the United States. Will he give us an opportunity for a full debate about it, so that we can examine the details of this agreement?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ensure that either I or a Minister in the relevant Department writes to the hon. Gentleman about that matter. However, he will have noted, if he was in his place, that a debate on defence spending will take place later today. I am sure it would not be regarded as out of order for him to make the points he wishes to make then and to ask that question again.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Many of my constituents who run small businesses are coming to me more and more frequently to complain about how business rates are calculated, which is leading to crippling charges that in many cases result in shops emptying. Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate on this vexed topic in the near future, which is affecting many businesses, not least in my constituency, but also right across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

Business rates are something on which this Government have focused positively and intensively, which is why small businesses benefit from rate relief. It is also one of the reasons why we have taken steps to ensure that the business rate burden is ameliorated for small businesses. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond to my hon. Friend’s point about valuation issues.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

There is another Government shambles, with delays to personal independence payments. Although I have had great help from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and Jayne Benton in the Department for Work and Pensions, the delays to payments are causing untold misery to my constituents, including the injured firefighter who waited 52 weeks for payment, and there are many people suffering in silence. Can we please have an urgent debate on the PIP debacle?

[Mr Lansley]

I remind the hon. Lady that Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions will be responding to questions on Monday. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with her description of what is happening with personal independence payments. It is tremendously important for us to move to a much better system of assessment—disability living allowance was never reviewed or properly assessed. Modest numbers are going through at the moment, but the plan is for large numbers of those requiring to be assessed to be assessed by 2018. In particular, one must bear in mind that those awaiting assessment are generally in receipt of support, including through the continuation of DLA or the employment and support allowance.

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

Around 3,000 horses are currently on land without consent in England and Wales, and there is still no low-cost legal remedy for landowners to address the problem. Can we have a debate on whether fly-grazing should be made a criminal offence, so that action can be taken swiftly and offenders brought to justice? In addition, we can draw on the experience of the Welsh Assembly, which has enacted the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, which provides all Welsh local authorities with powers to seize and impound horses.

[Mr Lansley]

From my own constituency, I know of precisely the kind of circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, which can be very distressing to a local community. We do not believe it is necessarily a solution to give local authorities powers to remove horses and kill them at public expense. We need to tackle the perpetrators directly. We need a co-ordinated and co-operative approach, using the available legislation. There is some legislation that was previously available, but there are also new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour that will soon become available, following the legislation passed in the last Session. I hope that will enable us to act more effectively in relation to those responsible for fly-grazing.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I press the Leader of the House for an urgent statement on the issue, raised by the shadow Leader of the House, of the number of British citizens fighting abroad? Information from Iraq this morning suggests that 400 are currently fighting there, and if we add that to the 400 identified as fighting in Syria, it becomes a very large number of people. This is separate from a discussion about the security situation in Iraq or indeed the proscription of ISIS, which will be debated later today. May we please have a statement on how we can stop our citizens going to fight abroad?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a distinct issue here—a very important one, as the Prime Minister made perfectly clear yesterday—and we take it extremely seriously. It is linked, of course, to the question of the proscription and the more general debate about the situation in Iraq, but the issue of people going from this country to fight, the training they receive and their returning to this country, is a very important one. I cannot promise an immediate statement or debate, but we keep the issue very much in mind, and we will keep the House updated. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House of Lords is currently considering legislation that includes measures to make the planning of terrorist attacks abroad a criminal offence in this country. That will give us more direct powers to deal with the issue.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House look at providing an urgent debate on the importance of having regular elections? He may not be aware that the senior Labour peer, the noble Lord Grocott, has a Bill in the other place that would repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but leave no mechanism for dissolving Parliament and no mechanism for having elections at any point. Although that would lead to the remarkably positive result that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be in power for ever, the British public might occasionally like a general election!

[Mr Lansley]

My goodness, what my hon. Friend says sounds jolly tempting. I am surprised that the noble Lord Grocott considered it wise to legislate in such a way. Perhaps he and the Labour party are rather worried by the prospect of elections and the dangers they might represent. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that we in the coalition Government are not frightened of elections and we have no intention of returning to a “Long Parliament”, as it were.

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

Last week, BBC Radio Humberside and the Hull Daily Mail were reporting a scam alleging that the bedroom tax had been abolished and asking for people’s personal information so that refunds of their payments could be made. May we have a debate to make it clear that this bedroom tax policy was supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and that it will be abolished only with the return of a Labour Government in 2015?

[Mr Lansley]

I find the scam to which the hon. Lady refers shocking: people should not be exploited in that way, and I am sure that we agree on that. The trading standards department of her local authority might be in a position to take some action against it. The policy, however, is straightforward. It is about dealing with under-occupancy so that large numbers of people who are trying to access social housing will have an opportunity to do so through the better use of our social housing stock.

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

I echo the call for a debate on developments in the middle east, which are arguably more significant than the events we have seen unfold in Ukraine. Britain is not isolated: we are very much affected by the diplomatic, economic, humanitarian and military issues that are for this place to consider, and who knows when the Executive might seek Parliament’s support in designing any response?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Foreign Secretary took immediate steps to update the House on Monday. I cannot promise an immediate debate on Syria and Iraq, because, contrary to what was implied by the shadow Leader of the House, there is legislative pressure on Government time. However, I will discuss the matter with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. We have given the Committee time in which to arrange debates on issues that are considered important by Members in all parts of the House, and I have understood from Members that they feel the need for a debate on Syria and Iraq.

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

We recently marked the 30th anniversary of the Indian Government’s attack on the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister set up an internal inquiry into allegations of collusion between the Thatcher and Gandhi Governments at the time. The inquiry was limited and internal, it did not include publication of all the documents, and it has not gained the confidence of the Sikh community in Britain, who have now launched a call for an independent, judge-led inquiry into the whole affair. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement in response to the Sikh community’s request?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House following the Cabinet Secretary’s report. I saw the report and the papers associated with it, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. The Foreign Secretary made clear that the report constituted a comprehensive and conclusive response to the issues that had been raised, and I do not currently expect any further statement to be made.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Next Monday, the House will debate the Report stage and Third Reading of the Deregulation Bill. My right hon. Friend will have noted that our hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have tabled a number of new clauses which, if passed, would completely deregulate Sunday trading. I must tell my right hon. Friend that any such move by the House would be seen by the Church of England—and, I am sure, by many other faith groups—as an act of bad faith on the part of Parliament. The present Sunday trading arrangements arose from a series of compromises that were agreed in the mid-1990s to strike a balance between keeping Sunday special and enabling more stores and shops to open on Sundays. I should welcome my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that if you, Mr Speaker, select any of the new clauses for debate, they will be resisted by the Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House would respond on behalf of the Government if the new clauses were to be debated. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government believe that the current position constitutes a reasonable balance between some people’s wish for more opportunities to shop in large stores on Sundays and the desire of others for further restrictions, and that we are therefore not minded to legislate for further liberalisation.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The issue of passports was aired in the House yesterday, but we did not receive an answer from the Prime Minister to my question about the Passport Office. It would be helpful to hear some sort of statement about the matter. I should like to know why the Passport Office, which is providing such a terrible service, is being run not as a service to the public, but as a cash cow for the Chancellor. Last year, it made a £73 million profit.

[Mr Lansley]

Actually, I think that I did hear an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The purpose of any agency of that kind is to cover its costs. Its charges should be set, and prudential levels of surplus will enable it to cover those costs. There would be no merit in running it in any other way.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Passport Office was being run as a service to the public. It is, absolutely. As is clear from the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during yesterday’s debate, substantial steps are being taken—through the helpline, the provision of additional front-line staff, and the waiving of charges for urgent applications when people have to travel—to ensure that the service to the public is achieved as we wish it to be.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Last week a tribunal judge gave the nuisance call industry the green light to cause misery to millions by deciding that the sending of illegal and unsolicited texts on an industrial scale failed to cause

“serious harm or serious distress”.

On 30 March, the Government published an action plan that included measures to deal with the problem. May we have a statement from a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport outlining what progress has been made, and when we can expect less planning and more action?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions and it is of importance to Members and their constituents. As he rightly says, the Government brought forward the action plan on 30 March. We are continuing to look, together with the regulators, at how the system of penalties for those breaking the code can act as the necessary disincentive to this kind of behaviour. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they think it might be appropriate to update the House and how we might do so.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that thalidomide is still an issue, especially as the victims get older and face new problems. May we have a debate on how best to help these people and, linked to that, a debate on a national birth register?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will seek an answer for the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Government’s view on the national birth register. On support for those suffering from the consequences of thalidomide treatment, he will remember that when I was Health Secretary we made a very substantial settlement. In my view, that put the position where we would want it to be, and I do not know that there was more we needed to do at that time. Clearly, from the NHS point of view, those who are older who are living with the consequences of thalidomide treatment in the past often have increasing requirements, and the question is the extent to which the NHS can support those.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

This week Salisbury city football club was faced with demotion and a funding crisis when one of its new owners failed to deliver on his promises, despite the Football Association waving him through a fit and proper person test. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on football governance so other small clubs across the country like Salisbury do not have to pay the price for this failure of proper governance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He will know that football authorities collectively have introduced more checks and greater requirements around the owners and directors test, particularly at premier league and football league level, and that does support responsible ownership. In the case of Salisbury whites, the football conference took steps it believed to be appropriate to establish the club’s funding capability and its decision was to regulate the club. The conference has rigorous financial regulations in place, developed in conjunction with the FA. That has seen a substantial reduction in debt in the conference in recent years, but many Members feel that there is a case for a debate. A request for such a debate on non-league football was made to the Backbench Business Committee towards the end of the last Session. I will discuss with the BBC whether it would wish for that debate to take place soon. That may be of interest to Members across the House.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday my constituents suffered the inconvenience and disruption of three trains in a row being cancelled. Sadly, this has been a more regular occurrence in recent years. May we have a debate in Government time on commuter rail services? It is not just that there are short franchises leading to a lack of investment and a poor service; the reality is that we are having real difficulty in getting anything like the service that is claimed to be provided. May we have a debate on this as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, ask Transport Ministers to address the specific points about the hon. Gentleman’s line and the circumstances that led to that loss of service. He will be aware that some of the recent franchise announcements have related to Greater Anglia, the line that serves north London and beyond, including my constituency. From my point of view, the level of service running into King’s Cross that has been achieved most recently has been satisfactory. Indeed, the capacity increases in prospect under the new franchise should make the experience of passengers considerably better.

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

The whole House will have been disturbed by the figures released this week on the under-educational achievement of white working-class boys and girls, particularly in attaining five good GCSE levels. May we have a debate on how free schools in particular can bridge the ethnic education gap and, more broadly, about how we can help parents engage with their children’s education?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. It is a good question to ask today because we have just heard from the Department for Education that approval has been given for 38 additional free schools. That is very encouraging news for parents as it will help them gain access to the schools they want and the places they want with the character they are looking for, and it will help us to drive up standards. The Education Committee makes some important points in its report, to which the Government will respond. I take pride in the fact that this coalition Government have ensured that more than a quarter of a million fewer children are being taught in failing schools.

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

May we have a debate on the accuracy of information provided on Government websites, particularly on the Home Office website? We heard yesterday in the debate on the passport crisis of many constituents being misled about processing times. Despite the Home Secretary’s very lengthy statement, we are none the clearer on processing times, what constitutes a straightforward application and who is eligible for compensation. Does the Leader of House agree that our constituents have a right to get that information accurately—and now—on Government websites?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry but I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was here for the statement and much of the debate, and I heard the Home Secretary accurately describe in terms what is on the Home Office website. She characterised the information as a promise of a straightforward application being achieved in three weeks. She quoted precisely from the website, which makes it very clear that that cannot be guaranteed in circumstances where additional questions have to be raised. The Home Office website is clear and the Home Secretary, in what she said yesterday, was absolutely clear about the number of passports that are currently a work in progress and the number that are in excess of the three-week objective.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I have shares in the company, Polity Communications. I am also chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment. Sir Terry Farrell has undertaken a review of architectural policy for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently. May we please have a debate on the future of architectural design as a real basis of our building for a significant amount of our heritage in the future?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the important work it does in advising on the developments that are coming forward. We do have opportunities, not least in relation to new settlements and prospective garden cities, not only to reflect the successful design concepts in architecture of the past but to establish something in the 21st century that will be part of our architectural heritage for the future. As far as a debate is concerned, the subject might lend itself to an application for an Adjournment debate.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituents are concerned that the future TransPennine rail franchise may curtail services from Cleethorpes to Manchester via Scunthorpe. Can we have a debate on TransPennine rail services?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might also like to seek an Adjournment debate on that matter, but, to be as helpful as I can, I will ask Ministers at the Department for Transport to respond to him and update him on the position in relation to the TransPennine link.

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

Tomorrow is national care home open day, and I will visit several homes in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Caring for those suffering from dementia is a major challenge in the care sector. We know that one in three people aged over 85 suffers some form of cognitive impairment. There has been a positive announcement today about the UK commitment to research into treatments, but any such treatment is still a long way off. Please may we have a debate about caring for those who are suffering from dementia in care homes; the support available in the community to help people stay in their own homes longer; and how we can make our society more dementia friendly?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am glad that he has drawn attention to the good work that is done in care homes. Too often, I fear, people hear about the occasions on which the quality in care homes fails, but many care homes do first-class work and provide an important environment for people who cannot look after themselves at home.

Dementia is one of the main reasons such care is required. I was proud to launch the challenge on dementia with the Prime Minister in early 2012, and a major step is being taken today towards global action to promote dementia research. That is tremendously important. As my hon. Friend says, creating more dementia-friendly communities is equally important, and we are making tremendous progress on that. Some communities across the country are leaders, and I hope that many communities will follow them in providing dementia-friendly support to people.

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

The UK Independence party is proud of its newly formed alliance with a Swedish party that was founded by white supremacists, one of whom is a former member of the Waffen SS. Not to be outdone, the Tory party’s latest ally in Europe is a Dutch party that banned women from its membership until 2006. May we have a debate on whether those alliances are an example of what the Prime Minister means by “British values”?

[Mr Lansley]

At the Dispatch Box, I speak on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to matters in the European Parliament; they are not the responsibility of the Government. [Interruption.] I speak here as Leader of the House, and for the Government. As it happens, speaking personally, I would not draw the same conclusions as the hon. Gentleman did. It is important for us to look carefully at the relationships in the European Parliament, and I think that UKIP needs to reflect carefully on the relationships it is forming.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House may be aware that together with our hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and five other colleagues across the Chamber, I have written to the Home Secretary to ask for an independent inquiry into historic child abuse. That call has already been taken up by more than 70 hon. Members from across the House. Given that new stories emerge almost daily of grotesque abuse of children going back to the ’60s, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that such an inquiry was held, and will he give time for a debate in the House to set the scene for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has done important work on tackling those issues. He will be aware of the range of inquiries that have taken place, some of which, I hope, are approaching a conclusion. As the Prime Minister has said and recently reiterated to the House, we have not been persuaded of the case for an overarching inquiry; indeed, we feel that there is a significant risk that such an inquiry might impede and delay the resolution of some of the issues in the separate inquiries that are taking place. As the Prime Minister rightly said, however, he will continue actively to keep the question under review.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government have allowed a situation to arise whereby Swansea prison now holds twice as many prisoners as it was designed for, which the chief inspector of prisons describes as a “political and policy failure”. Can we have a proper debate in Government time on prison policy?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that there is a case for a debate, because I do not think that the case that the hon. Lady makes was sustained in the questioning that took place on an urgent question on the subject earlier this week. On the contrary, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice set out clearly the number of spare places across the prison estate; the reasons for the increase in the prison population; and the steps that we are taking to deal with any capacity issues that might arise, including plans for an additional 2,000 places to be made available over the next nine months. He set out the position clearly to the House, and that does not give rise to any further requirement for debate.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On Tuesday, the Punjab police force took action to remove security barriers around the Minhaj-ul-Quran headquarters and the home of Dr Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri in Lahore. Eight people are confirmed dead and many of the injured remain in hospital. This incident has caused outrage not just across Pakistan but across the Pakistani community living in the UK, so may we have a debate on what happened and on what pressure the UK Government can bring to bear on the Pakistani Government to ensure that a full inquiry is held?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are concerned by the reports of injuries and deaths of protestors in Lahore on Tuesday. We urge restraint by all and call for calm. It is important, as he suggests, to ensure that the full facts are understood and we understand that the Chief Minister of Punjab has announced a judicial inquiry into the events.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Many coalfield MPs will recently have had the bittersweet experience of attending commemorative events of the 30th anniversary of the miners’ strike, and the memories are bittersweet. That has coincided with the publication of the official papers after 30 years, which have disclosed that there was—this was denied at the time, but is now clearly evidenced—a hit list of pit closures and allegations of collusion between the police and the state. Is it not now time for an inquiry, and will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Floor of the House? This will not go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I have no knowledge of any intention to have such an inquiry. I say that without prejudice, of course, because, as he will be aware, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is continuing to consider the requests for an inquiry into matters at Orgreave. The hon. Gentleman’s reference is more general, and we are seeing the disclosure of public documents, as is the nature of events, but I would not interpret what happened in the way that he does. People will make their own judgments on the basis of the evidence as disclosed in the publication of the Government papers.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

As the England football team continue their quest for glory, supported as we know by The Sun, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the controversy surrounding that newspaper’s free circular? That will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to speak as well as offering those Labour Members who went in a delegation to him to complain—a delegation that might have included the shadow Leader of the House—the chance to put their views on the record.

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in extending our best wishes to the England team as they take on Uruguay this evening. I will be rooting for them. I noted that in her generally humorous remarks the shadow Leader of the House did not see occasion to poke fun at her own leader—

[Ms Angela Eagle]

That’s not my job, it’s yours.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, well—it is my job to answer questions. The hon. Lady did not even see it as an occasion to poke fun at the deputy leader of the Labour party, who seems to have contrived a position in which it was right both to have been in the picture in the first place and to have apologised for that. That seems to me to be a very curious position to have arrived at.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I visited the west bank last year? The security of the Jordan valley is controlled by Israel, as the Israeli Government insist that they have significant security concerns about the misuse of the area should they relinquish control. That view is now justified following the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers last week, possibly to be used in a swap such as that which occurred with Gilad Shalit. Given that only a return to direct peace talks can achieve a peace deal, may we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to say what the British Government are doing as part of the Quartet in seeking such a deal?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend reflects the sense of distress that will have been felt by many in Israel and more widely about the kidnapping of teenagers in that way. That calls for condemnation and the House and the Government condemn the abduction in the strongest terms and call for the release of the teenagers to their families as soon as possible. Obviously, this is not strictly a matter for this Government but it is something about which we feel strongly and on which we have called for action.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 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 16 June—I expect my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to update the House following the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict. That will be followed by the conclusion of the remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to special educational needs.

Tuesday 17 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

Wednesday 18 June—Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be debates on Opposition motions, including a debate on energy prices.

Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa, followed by a general debate on defence spending. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session.

Friday 20 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 June will include the following:

Monday 23 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Deregulation Bill.

Tuesday 24 June—Remaining stages of the Wales Bill.

Wednesday 25 June—Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 26 June—General debate on the programme of commemoration for the first world war.

Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, and may I also take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her unopposed re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee? She is doing such a good job that no one even thought she should be replaced. We could not say the same about many Government Ministers.

I would also like to wish the England football team good luck in their first World cup game on Saturday. We are all convinced that they are going to have a great tournament and we will all be watching their every move, as usual, from behind the sofa.

I note from the Leader of the House’s comments that the Foreign Secretary is due to give us a statement on his conference on sexual violence, which is very welcome, on Monday, but we all watched in horror as militant extremists overran swathes of north-western and central Iraq yesterday, and they are now reported to be within 50 miles of Baghdad. Over half a million people have had to flee, and the country has been forced to declare a state of emergency. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to keep the House fully informed as this deeply worrying situation develops?

In future business there is an eerie silence on the recall Bill, and the Deputy Prime Minister managed, in true Lib Dem fashion, to disagree with his own draft Bill only last week. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Government’s latest version of the recall Bill will actually be published?

A report from the National Audit Office has revealed that the Government’s armed forces restructuring is in chaos. The plans are already six years behind schedule, and instead of making savings of nearly £11 billion, it looks like these changes are going to cost the public purse more. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has rightly described the additional cost as scandalous. The changes risk exposing a dangerous capability gap in the nation’s defences, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Defence Secretary so he can explain these failings in his Department?

As the passport agency descended into chaos, the Government first tried denial, then played the blame game, and now have been forced into a series of emergency measures. The head of the agency denied that there was a backlog only on Monday; the Home Secretary was boasting that it was meeting its service targets on Tuesday; by Wednesday the Prime Minister was forced to admit that it has been trying to clear the backlog for weeks; and overnight we found out that Ministers were not even aware that vital security checks have been scaled back to speed up the process. Even if the Home Secretary was unaware, the Leader of the House acknowledged the problem last week and promised a written ministerial statement. Seven days later, we have not had one, and my colleague the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has had no substantive reply to his named day questions on this subject. Will the Leader of the House explain why we have had to drag the Home Secretary kicking and screaming to the Chamber today to account for this fiasco? Is the non-appearance of the promised statement a further sign of the Home Secretary’s incompetence, or has she fallen out with the Leader of the House too?

After yet another weekly session where the Prime Minister focused on the rhetoric and ignored the reality, I have decided that we need a regular “mind the gap” watch to highlight the Government’s failure to live up to their PR hype. This week alone we have had the news that the housing benefits bill is set to soar by yet another £1 billion despite the Government promising to make work pay and provide enough affordable homes, food bank use is up by 54% last year alone despite the Government saying they would face up to the cost of living crisis, and, despite matching our promise to end child poverty by 2020, this week a report from their own Child Poverty Commission said that was not remotely “realistic”.

The Government’s Whitehall farce continues to run and run. The Conservatives are blaming their multiple failures on the civil service, their special advisers, the last Labour Government, and now they are even trying to blame Oxfam. The Prime Minister wanted to reshuffle his deck, but has now realised that he has got a pack of jokers. The Liberal Democrat headquarters managed to tweet:

“we didn’t go into govt because it was the right thing to do, we went into govt because it was the right thing to do”.

[Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] There is not a single Liberal Democrat Member here; they are all at a lesson on how to tweet properly. Only the Liberal Democrats could change their minds halfway through a tweet. After their disastrous election results, the Deputy Prime Minister has finally had some good news this week. They have finally topped a ballot—but it was only the ballot for private Members’ Bills. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has declared that the Liberal Democrats could be the biggest party in 2025, and William Hill has pulled its sponsorship from the Liberal Democrats’ closest rivals, the Monster Raving Loony party. This clearly demonstrates that there is only one joke party left in British politics.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement. I echo her congratulations to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), whose re-election is a testament to her chairmanship of the Backbench Business Committee and to the work of the Committee as a whole. It has brought forward some important debates and given Back Benchers a greatly enhanced voice. Surveys in recent years have shown that the public now believe that the House debates issues of relevance to them on a more regular and timely basis.

I also echo the shadow Leader of the House’s good wishes to the England team. It will be a late night on Saturday, but at least it will be followed by Sunday morning. I am looking forward to the England team scoring many goals and kissing the badge, as they say. I am told that the Leader of the Opposition is being invited to do that with the trade unions in Nottingham at the moment. It seems a strange idea, but it tells us something about where the trade unions think the interests of the Labour party lie, in contrast to the coalition, which knows that it serves in the national interest.

The hon. Lady asked about a statement on Monday. I have announced that the Foreign Secretary will be in the House on that day to make a statement, and we will of course take opportunities to update the House on the very concerning situation in Iraq. The threat presented by the so-called Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant is alarming for the whole international community. The Iraqi authorities in the federal Government and in the Kurdistan Regional Government need to co-ordinate and work together to put forward a political response and a security response to the situation. We are aware of large numbers of Iraqis being displaced from Mosul and the surrounding areas. The Department for International Development is monitoring that situation closely, and rapidly assessing the humanitarian need that will arise from it. I will ask my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in DFID to ensure that the House can be updated whenever possible.

The hon. Lady mentioned the recall Bill. We announced the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and will introduce it in due course. We are making good progress with it. We have already introduced five Bills in this Session—three in the other place and two here—and we will introduce further Bills in due course.

The hon. Lady also asked about defence spending. I have announced a debate on defence spending, which will take place next Thursday following the recommendations of the Backbench Business Committee. It will give my colleagues an opportunity to remind Members—including Opposition Members—that we inherited a defence budget with a £38 billion black hole. We have taken action to balance the books; Army 2020 is an integral part of that. An excellent job has been done—not least by the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the General Staff—to redesign the Army so that it can meet future demands while remaining affordable. We are committed to investing £1.8 billion in the reserves, and we are now seeing the benefit of that: the trained strength of the reserve forces is rising for the first time in 18 years.

The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the Passport Office. I made it clear in response to questions last week that my colleagues would update the House on that matter this week, and they have done so in response to questions and to an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). The Home Secretary has also given the House a full, authoritative response on the issue and outlined a number of measures that will make a substantial difference in the weeks ahead.

The hon. Lady asked about issues that she suggested were not being covered in the Government’s reply, and she included food prices. I heard one of my DEFRA colleagues reminding the House that food prices in the year to March rose by only 0.5%, and in the past two months food prices appear to have been falling, so it is important to bear in mind the fact that on some issues relating to the cost of living people are in a better place than they might otherwise have been. That is particularly the case when they are in work, and as we saw just yesterday more than 2 million new private sector jobs have been created since the general election. If there is a gap, it is between the Labour party and reality on what is happening in our economy. Our long-term economic plan is delivering on reducing the deficit and on growth, which is 3% up on a year ago. We have 2 million more private sector jobs and 400,000 more businesses. We are delivering our long-term economic plan in the national interest while the Leader of the Opposition is off to serve the union interest.

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

I echo the call for a debate on the situation in Iraq, although it is noticeable that Her Majesty’s official Opposition did not ask for such a debate, having not provided a debate on foreign affairs during consideration of the Queen’s Speech. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a general debate on foreign affairs, to cover not only Iraq but the crisis in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and he is absolutely right: I was very surprised and disappointed that the Opposition did not choose to debate matters relating to foreign affairs and defence. Of course, the Backbench Business Committee will enable defence issues to be raised next week, but this was the second year in a row that the Opposition did not choose to debate foreign affairs. Given the circumstances in which they made that decision—the events in Ukraine and Syria, and now Iraq—it would have been helpful had they chosen to have such a debate. Anybody who examines the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords will see that it had a full, substantial debate on foreign affairs. I believe that Members in the other place were astonished that there was no debate on foreign affairs in this House, but of course, these were matters for the Opposition.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

On average, 7,500 people are on the waiting list for transplants and each year 1,000 people die because an organ is not available. May we have a debate on why we cannot co-ordinate transplant week with the transplant games? That would allow us to raise the profile of the Donate Life campaign and then, we hope, three people a week would not die waiting for an organ to become available.

[Mr Lansley]

I very much share the hon. Lady’s sense of the priority and importance of this issue. I was the sponsor in this House of transplant week some years ago, because more transplants take place in my constituency than anywhere else in the United Kingdom; it contains Papworth hospital, a leading heart and lung transplant centre, and Addenbrooke’s hospital, which deals with livers, kidneys, and pancreatic and other organs. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health, who work with the charities concerned, about the timings of these important charitable events and what possibilities there might be, as we do want to make further progress. The number of people on the organ donation register has increased by 50%, which is having a big impact on the availability of organs, but we need to do more. I hope we will be able to co-ordinate things in the way she describes.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on why Labour councils, particularly Telford & Wrekin council, are deliberately misinterpreting and miscommunicating the Government’s national planning guidelines? Do the Government still prefer development, be it residential or retail, to be on brownfield rather than greenfield sites?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is very much about a presumption in favour of brownfield over greenfield development; that is what the Government are looking towards. The other important thing is that this Government expect planning to be locally led. I am sure my hon. Friend will bring to bear on his council, in the way he describes, local people’s views on what they want in their local plan. Under the Localism Act 2011, that should be pre-eminent in the local plan.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Secretary of State for Education announced that, in future, schools will teach British values. Although he appears to have been panicked by the crisis in his Department into announcing something with which he used to disagree, it is a very good idea. The problem is that it is easier said than done and harder to do well than badly, and if it is done badly it would probably be better not to do it at all. Can we have a debate in this House, before the Department publishes its proposals, on how exactly British values can be taught successfully and effectively in our schools?

[Mr Lansley]

Indeed, I heard the Secretary of State say that. If I recall correctly—I will ensure that I am correct about this—I think he said that while he was looking for schools to promote British values, it was not some immediate response, but something he had been considering. I think it was the subject of a pre-existing consultation in any case. We will of course ensure that we keep the House informed about the progress of that consultation and our response to it.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Tackling domestic violence has rightly risen up the political agenda. Football United Against Domestic Violence is a new campaign by Women’s Aid working with national footballing bodies, sports, media, football clubs, the police, players and fans to send a clear message that domestic violence is always unacceptable. Following Tuesday’s successful parliamentary launch supported by the Premier League, BT Sport, the Football Association, Charlie Webster, Jahmene Douglas and a large number of cross-party MPs, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should hold a debate on this important subject?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is quite right: domestic violence and abuse ruin lives. They are completely unacceptable, which is why tackling this crime has been one of the Government’s top priorities since coming to office, and that includes backing the important work of Women’s Aid. He knows that there is no compelling evidence that suggests a causal link between sporting events and domestic violence and abuse. However, an event of the importance of the World cup presents an opportunity for us to target different audiences with our message concerning domestic abuse; he is quite right about that. It will build on the work of Women’s Aid, and the Home Office has launched a campaign for that purpose. Whether we are talking about physical violence, threats or coercive behaviour, they all count as abuse and it is part of our work to stop it.

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

It is a statutory responsibility of electoral registration officers and local authorities to do door-to-door canvassing of non-responders to voter registration. In Hansard today, there is a list of 22 local authorities that break the law, some of which have broken the law for four years on the trot and no action has been taken. Will the Leader of the House have a debate in Parliament on this important issue that affects our democracy?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate but I will talk to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for Cities and Constitution and has oversight of such issues. In the first instance though, I will ask the Electoral Commission to respond because it has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of elections, which includes the work of the electoral registration officers and whether or not they meet their responsibilities.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

This morning, the Court of Appeal overturned the Government’s application for a terrorism trial to be held in blanket secrecy. It still allows the state to hand-pick journalists to report on the case subject to undefined conditions. The House has had no explanation of why that is necessary, given existing powers such as public interest immunity powers, and the state is relying on vague common law powers which have not been set and defined by elected Members of this House. Given that principles of open justice and democracy are at stake, can we have a statement or a debate on the matter in the near future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

It is probably best if I confine myself to what the Attorney-General said this morning, which is that the principle of open justice is key to the British legal system and that trials will always be held in public unless there are very strong reasons for doing otherwise. The measures applied for by the Crown Prosecution Service in this case were, it is believed, justified in order for the trial to proceed and for the defendants to hear the evidence against them, while protecting national security. The issues were considered today by the court; it is not for the Government to decide such things. As the Attorney-General rightly said this morning, we can look to the courts to ensure that the interests of justice will be maintained.

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

May we have a debate on ovarian cancer and particularly the need for the BRCA test to be available? It is available in Scotland, but despite the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that women in the rest of the UK should qualify, it is not available to them. There is an urgent need for a debate to address that inequality for women.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I cannot promise a debate, but it is an issue about which she and colleagues might wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee, as debates on important health issues have been among the more successful of those it has been able to promote. I will speak to colleagues about responding directly to the hon. Lady on the issues she raises about the guidance.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

As I came 17th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, if I introduced a Bill to confirm that prisoners should not be allowed to vote, would it have Government support?

[Mr Lansley]

I wish my hon. Friend good luck in the private Member’s Bill process, but I will adhere to the convention that the Government respond with their view on such Bills on Second Reading.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Of the 16 families who have contacted me about passport delays, the most tragic case is that of Kiran and Bina Salvi, who went to India in March for the birth of their surrogate twins. They were told that it would take six weeks to obtain their passports, and they have now been told that it will be at least 16 weeks. They are at risk of losing their jobs, running out of money, stuck in a hot hotel room and terrified that their precious babies will get malaria. May we have a proper statement on this issue so that we can help Kiran and Bina bring their babies home?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady has given us some of the details, but if she wants to give me any additional details I will ask my hon. Friends at the Home Office to respond. She will have heard what the Home Secretary had to stay about the availability of emergency travel documents and access to urgent consideration for passport applications without charge. I hope that one of those options might be helpful in the case the hon. Lady mentions.

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

May we have an early debate on the role of community hospitals, particularly in rural areas? I understand that the new head of NHS England has said that they have a future role to play, so this is a good opportunity to debate the issue on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that in the later stages of the previous Session, there was a debate on community hospitals and I am pleased to see that Simon Stevens, the new chief executive of NHS England, has taken the matter up. When we took office, it was very important to us to have a greater focus on delivering care close to people’s homes, to improve people’s ability to step out of the high-cost acute hospitals so that they could concentrate on their job, and to give a focus to local commissioners. Often, it is the new local clinical commissioning groups that best understand how community hospitals can serve the people they look after.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on compensation for losses caused by the passport fiasco? In my office over the past few weeks, we have been trying to help people left in a desperate situation by the chaos, and it will not have escaped the country’s notice that the word “sorry” did not once pass the Home Secretary’s lips. She did not address the issue of compensation, either. Is it not only fair for people who apply for passports in good faith and in good time and who suffer losses—for example, by having to cancel their holidays—to be compensated? May we have a debate on that?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the Home Secretary fully responded to the questions raised just before business questions. I am sure that in future we will be able to look after our constituents much better, in the way that she described, by being able to raise urgent cases. In my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, when we have had to raise cases we have been able to get through on the MPs’ helpline and resolve them rapidly.

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

Many Members across the House will agree that Sepp Blatter’s recent comments were wholly unacceptable and a distraction from the real issues. If we are committed to tackling racism in football, we need to focus on the terraces, where there is a real issue, not on the back-rooms of Fleet street. Given this country’s proud history of tackling racism, may we have a debate on the state of football so that we in this House can send out the clearest message that racism and corruption in football are unacceptable and that by pushing the issue aside, FIFA risks tarnishing itself and ultimately the sport?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I completely agree with him: racism is unacceptable in all areas of society. I thought the remarks were probably inappropriate not least because in this country the Football Association has been proactive in tackling racism in football through a whole sport inclusion and anti-discrimination plan, “Football is for Everyone”, and the FA’s inclusion advisory body, chaired by Heather Rabbatts, is further promoting equality in the national game. It was therefore inappropriate to use that language in relation to questions properly being asked about the way in which FIFA was managing its processes. It was not appropriate. I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance to raise the matter.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Even though the north-east of England is the only region outside London that makes a positive contribution to our GDP, it has among the lowest median incomes and the highest jobseeker’s allowance rates in the country. May we please have a debate to consider the special measures that can be taken to address the gross inequity and inequality that afflicts the north-east of England and other regions?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope—I do not know—that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to address those issues in the course of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. He will, of course, have an opportunity to do so today in the debate on the economy and living standards that the Opposition have initiated with their amendment. He is quite right: it is disappointing that the north-east is the only region of the United Kingdom where unemployment went up in the latest figures; everywhere else, it went down. One thing we need to keep looking at is how we can continue to rebalance the economy, as is successfully happening in many other places. We want to try to improve manufacturing. We have seen manufacturing growing in the latest data at 4.4% a year, which is faster than for a long time. As a manufacturing economy, the north-east should be participating more fully in that.

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

Following on from the global summit on sexual violence in war, may we have a debate, on the conflict in Sri Lanka, which is still going on, against the Tamil community, where women are being raped daily?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Secretary will update the House on Monday, following what appears to have been an extremely successful global summit, not simply because we brought so many countries together for the purpose of ending sexual violence in conflict, but because of the vigour of the NGO community coming together in the same way. The message being sent out is that people need to understand the sheer scale and enormity of sexual violence in conflicts and that so very few people have been held responsible. That must not be true in future. It must be that the people responsible for such things will genuinely be held to account for the crimes they commit.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In March, I asked the Leader of the House when the Government would deliver the will of the House and the country by banning wild animals in circuses. He teased me rather in his response by saying that he could not pre-empt the Queen’s Speech. We have now had the Queen’s Speech and the measure is not in it. When will the Government bring forward legislation?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on this, but unfortunately, as I said last week, it has not been possible to find time in the short Session ahead of us.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House prepared to arrange for a statement next week on the procedures to replace the current Clerk of the House, when we could find out more on how much the use of head-hunters will cost, who will decide who the head-hunters are, who will monitor the progress of the head-hunters and who will take the final decision on the replacement Clerk?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend will understand that the procedures for the appointment of the new Clerk are a matter for the House of Commons Commission. Although I am a member of the Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) answers on its behalf to the House. I know that my right hon. Friend will find an opportunity in due course to ask those questions. We will face a daunting task indeed in filling the silver-buckled shoes of the present Clerk, who is not here now. I hope to announce soon an opportunity for Members to pay tribute to the Clerk before the summer recess.

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

Long-term youth unemployment since May 2010 in my constituency is up by 18.5% and long-term female unemployment is up by 76%—from 125 to 220 women—and in the north-east average earnings are down by £49 a week. Could we have a debate about how the Government’s long-term economic plan is clearly failing my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

As I told the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who asked about the north-east a moment ago, the latest data show a reduction in unemployment everywhere else in the UK. [Interruption.] I am saying that it is important that we understand why the north-east is not conforming to an extremely positive trend right across the rest of the country. The latest data show that unemployment as defined by the International Labour Organisation is down by 347,000 on the year; that the claimant count is down by more than 400,000; that the number of private sector jobs has gone up by nearly 800,000 in a year; and that, since the election, the number of unemployed young people is down by 91,000 and that of long-term unemployed by 108,000.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has been to my constituency, so he knows how beautiful it is, but Labour-led Stroud district council, having failed to get a local plan, has left it vulnerable to unscrupulous developers. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to emphasise the fact that local plans are required and that it is the responsibility of no one other than the councils to have one?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stroud and it is a most beautiful place and a wonderful part of the country. It is very important that local people have an opportunity, through local plans, to ensure that development takes place in a way that is consistent with their views on the quality of life in their area. The local plan process is vital in that regard. Many authorities are getting on with it: I think that 76% of all councils have at least a published plan. Further amendments to the national planning policy guidance mean that publishing a local plan in itself enables one to have influence on the individual planning decisions being made, so it is important.

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

Like many Members, I am very concerned about the number of constituents having severe difficulties with Atos Healthcare. One particularly distressing case involved my constituent Mr Vickers from Hyde, who has multiple support needs and has not had his application for a personal independence payment processed, even though he applied in October 2013. May we therefore have a debate about the Government’s performance in delivering the assessments, so that we can try to minimise the delay and distress being caused?

[Mr Lansley]

It was necessary for us to move from the previous system of the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which is a much better system. In the past, people sometimes stayed on allowances for years without any assessment. It is important to have a proper assessment. As we make progress—we are doing so steadily—we need to make sure not only that we do it properly, but that we get to the point where decisions can be made quickly.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Could the Leader of the House or the Backbench Business Committee give the House an opportunity to hold a general debate on the concept of recall, so that the House collectively can work out what we are seeking to achieve? Some are arguing that oversight of the behaviour of Members of Parliament should be performed entirely externally, but any external body would, by definition, have to be statutory, and any statutory body would be subject to judicial oversight, which would mean the intervention of the courts and the potential for judicial review and applications in due course to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It could, therefore, take a considerably long time for an MP who was under a cloud to go through that judicial process before their constituents had any opportunity to recall him or her.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said in that past, I do not think we can contemplate a body other than the House itself reaching right into this Chamber to determine the circumstances in which a Member could continue their membership of this House. I think it is the House itself that should have such regulatory responsibility, not least for reasons of privilege.

As far as a debate is concerned, the recall Bill will give exactly such an opportunity. It is also important that we hear from the Standards Committee, which is conducting a review of how to further strengthen this House’s standards process.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), may I ask for a full debate on the chaos that is Atos assessing employment and support allowance? There is a backlog of 712,000 cases at the moment. We know that Atos is not fit for purpose and will be replaced, but can we ensure that we get things right next time and have a full debate to discuss that?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, I have to remind the hon. Lady that the contract was awarded to Atos by Labour in the first place. As she says, we are exiting the contract early, and of course there will be a substantial financial settlement to the Department for Work and Pensions as a result. We will continue to monitor the performance of Atos until its exit early next year and we will find a new provider to deliver the best possible service for claimants.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on the future of the beef industry in Britain, which is currently experiencing a catastrophic collapse in prices as a result of imports, in which we can focus particularly on the country of origin, whether it be Ireland or other European countries?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. If he did not, I will of course ask my hon. Friends at DEFRA to respond directly to him about the issues that he raises.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Back in the early spring, I wrote to the Home Secretary about the issue of putting the mother’s name on the marriage certificate and I had a negative reply. Since then, there has been a growing campaign, with many thousands of people signing a petition, yet there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech about this issue. Will the Leader of the House now ask his colleagues at the Home Office to look at it again and see whether a measure on it can be included in this Government’s legislative programme?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that we have announced a full programme for this Session in the Queen’s Speech and that there will be very limited opportunities for additional legislation beyond that which has been announced. I believe that the petition she refers to has received a Government response, but whether it has or has not I will ask Ministers to look further at the points she raises and respond to her.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on nuisance calls? The latest batch of unsolicited automated calls to my constituents are about some kind of boiler replacement scheme. The calls are to constituents who have already applied to the Telephone Preference Service. They are massively inconvenient, but they are also very distressing for elderly residents who live on their own.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will recall that we published the nuisance calls action plan on 30 March. Since January 2012, the regulator has issued monetary penalties totalling just over £2.5 million to companies for breaching its rules, but in response to the action plan further work will be done with the Office of Communications to see whether the maximum penalty might be increased, in order to give a real sanction for those who are making nuisance calls, which is contrary to the code.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

With the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, may we have a debate on housing supply? The Government are taking many measures to increase housing demand, and all that those measures have led to is price inflation. Is there not an opportunity in the next few weeks to discuss housing supply? The measures in the Queen’s Speech are totally inadequate. We need real action and we need it now.

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, the Government are taking action and indeed the Queen’s Speech included measures that—as the hon. Gentleman may have seen—will come forward in the Infrastructure Bill, which will further support house building in this country. However, 445,000 new houses have been built under this Government. We are recovering from the position we were left by the last Government, where house building fell off a cliff in the latter part of 2008. A good illustration of that recovery is that last year there were 216,000 new planning permissions.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

On Tuesday, the Department for Transport issued a consultation document about the TransPennine Express rail franchise, which contained a proposal to end through-services between Cleethorpes and Manchester. It also included repeated references to the importance of good rail services to economic growth. As the Government have identified northern Lincolnshire and the Humber area as a key economic growth area, will the Leader of the House find time to have a debate on this issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but in order to be as helpful as I can to my hon. Friend, and recognising the importance of the points he raises, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, our hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to reply. There is considerable detail in what he might be able to say, and I want him to be able to provide that to my hon. Friend.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When the Government get around to restoring the Passport Office from its present emaciated and failing state to the efficient service it had been for the previous century, may we have a debate on the need to ensure that those areas that suffered the savage cuts two years ago, such as Newport, have the first call on new jobs?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman had a chance to ask the Home Secretary a question about that earlier. I fear that his characterisation of the Passport Office is not helpful, not least for his constituents and others. As he will have heard from the Home Secretary, the Passport Office is continuing to provide substantially the service intended. Where problems have occurred, new staff are being deployed, both in call centres and in case handling, and the Home Secretary has just announced other measures that will enable constituents to get the service they are looking for.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

La Casa Loco is a very successful Mexican restaurant in Rugby. Two years ago the owner engaged a firm of no win, no fee consultants to reduce the business rates bill, but it was unsuccessful. This year the Government announced the very welcome news that they are reducing the business rates bill by £1,000 for 300,000 shops, pubs and restaurants on our high streets, but in May the owner of the restaurant received a bill for £500—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have very little time. What I need is short questions and short answers. We might then make some progress.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right that the £1 billion package includes that discount, which many businesses will receive automatically. Any business that thinks it might be eligible for the discount but has not received it should contact the council, but there is absolutely no need to employ an agent in order to receive it.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House witnessed this morning not only the unedifying spectacle of a Home Secretary who refuses to apologise to those experiencing problems with the Passport Office, but the large number of Members who were unable to raise their constituents’ concerns because of time pressures. Will he ensure that the Home Secretary continues to account to Parliament on the passport fiasco and that she does so on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard a Home Secretary who is very well aware of the situation, as she has been for a long time, who is taking the necessary steps and who told the House today of further steps to provide reassurance and support to our constituents. You, Mr Speaker, understandably did not feel that it was possible to allow every question earlier. Therefore, as the Home Secretary said repeatedly, any Member who has particular difficulties, especially if they cannot get through on the MPs’ helpline, should raise them through my office or with the Minister for Security and Immigration and we will ensure that we respond to them as quickly as possible.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 72 on excessive hospital car parking charges?

[That this House is disappointed that three-quarters of NHS hospitals in England charge patients and visitors to park on-site; notes that there are discrepancies over what is charged across England, with one hospital in London charging up to £500 per week to park on-site; believes that high charges deter visitors from seeing their loved ones and can hit the most vulnerable at a difficult time; further notes that the cost of abolishing car parking charges in England is estimated to be £200 million which, according to research, could be achieved through prescribing more generic drugs; and therefore asks the Government to consider scrapping hospital car parking fees across England.]

Despite the Government saying that charges should be proportionate, some hospitals are charging up to £500 a week, and the charity Bliss says that parents with sick children are paying an extra £34 a week. May we have an urgent statement on that, and will he make representations to the Department of Health to see what can be done?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right that vulnerable people and their families who regularly have to attend hospital are hit hardest by parking charges. That is why it is most important that hospitals use their discretion and the kind of plan the NHS Confederation has for offering concessions to those who have to attend regularly for treatment or to visit patients. As far as raising resources for that is concerned, the money available for the health service is there for the treatment of patients. I have always made it clear that my personal view is that we should, wherever possible, deploy those resources for the direct benefit of patient care, rather than diverting it to subsidise parking.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on how to win friends and influence people in Europe? The Leader of the House could lead it so that we could judge whether he would be any good as an EU commissioner. More importantly, he could explain to us why on earth Conservative MEPs have today joined forces with the AfD party in Germany, expressly against the wishes of their own party leader.

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s question is in one sense presumptuous. As far as winning friends and influencing people in Europe is concerned, that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing, and with the support of the party leaders. The position he has taken, which is one of principle, is that under the treaties the European Council has the responsibility to put forward the President of the Commission. That should not be pre-empted by the European Parliament. He has set that out and the other party leaders absolutely support him. It is clear that Heads of Government across Europe support that principle.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the Foreign Secretary’s statement on the summit on sexual violence in conflicts. May we please have a debate on the matter so that we can explore it more and discuss the scale of the problem and what the summit achieved?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the statement on Monday will be helpful to the House. It may well lead, quite properly, to calls for a further debate. We have to get our minds around the enormity of the problem. It is believed that an estimated 100,000 women were raped during the Guatemalan civil war. Between 20,000 and 50,000 were raped during the war in Bosnia. Over 200,000 were raped in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Those are frightful statistics. It is really important, as I have said previously, that those responsible are held to account, because very few of them have been. We must be much more confident that we can hold them to account in future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a debate on who is to be the next President of the European Commission? Given that all the major parties are united in their opposition to the candidacy of Mr Juncker, this is an opportunity to send him a collective raspberry as well as to highlight the unity on the Conservative Benches against ever-closer union.

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will understand, there will be regular opportunities to consider these matters, not least because the Prime Minister is assiduous in coming to the House and explaining them, as he did after the G7 summit and as he will have an opportunity to do after the further European Council at the end of the month. I hope that that will give us an opportunity to show that across the House there is a belief that the principle set out in the treaty should be adhered to: namely, that under the treaties it is the responsibility of the democratically elected Heads of State and Government in the European Council to put forward who should be the President of the Commission.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the incursion of solar farms on to valuable green belt and high-grade agricultural land, as there appears to be a growing conflict over our renewable energy commitments and protecting high-grade, food-producing land, which is vital for our food security?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, our right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), set out very clearly how that should be reconciled, not least by stating that the strategy is that solar PV should be appropriately sited, give proper weight to environmental considerations, provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions affecting them, and provide some form of community benefit. I recall reading his letter. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it sets out some good guidance for local authorities on making decisions about these applications.

Leader of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Ministerial Corrections

The following is the answer given by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) during Business of the House on 5 June 2014.

[Mr Lansley]

........As it happens, in the last Session we passed 20 Bills, while in the penultimate Session of the previous Parliament, 18 Bills were passed. An interesting contrast is that in the last Session, 24 Bills had two days of scrutiny on Report in this Chamber, while the figure for the whole of the previous Parliament was only 10. When it has come down to it, we have been able to accomplish a substantial legislative programme and we will continue to do so in this Session, with better scrutiny and legislation as a result.

[Official Report, 5 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 119.]

Letter of correction from Mr Lansley:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Lansley]

........As it happens, in the last Session we passed 20 Bills, while in the penultimate Session of the previous Parliament, 18 Bills were passed. An interesting contrast is that so far in this Parliament, 24 Bills had two days of scrutiny on Report in this Chamber, while the figure for the whole of the previous Parliament was only 10. When it has come down to it, we have been able to accomplish a substantial legislative programme and we will continue to do so in this Session, with better scrutiny and legislation as a result.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 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 9 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s speech on health, followed by motion to approve a reasoned opinion relating to undeclared work.

Tuesday 10 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s speech on home affairs.

Wednesday 11 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s speech on jobs and work.

Thursday 12 June—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s speech on the economy and living standards.

Friday 13 June—The House will not be sitting.

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

Monday 16 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill.

Tuesday 17 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

Wednesday 18 June—Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa, followed by a general debate on defence spending. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session.

Friday 20 June—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 19 June will be:

Thursday 19 June—A debate on the Twelfth Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee entitled “Parliament’s Role in Conflict Decisions: A Way Forward” followed by a debate on the Fourth Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee entitled “Do We Need a Constitutional Convention for the UK?”

[Ms Eagle]

Tomorrow we will remember the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings, when 160,000 allied troops crossed the channel to liberate Europe. Thousands of men gave their lives to help free Europe from fascist tyranny. We must never forget their bravery and their achievement.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us next week’s business. Will he confirm that after the debate on the Queen’s Speech he plans to carry on much as he left off by leaving the Opposition and the Backbench Business Committee to provide half the business each week?

There is a G7 meeting taking place in Brussels today at which the continuing crisis in Ukraine will be the main item on the agenda. Can the Leader of the House confirm that either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary intends to come to this House on Monday with a statement?

Following yesterday’s point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and your ruling, Mr Speaker, may I thank the Leader of the House for making generally available the No. 10 press briefing on the Gracious Speech? I see that he has just received his own briefing on this question. However, can he tell us why it took a point of order and your ruling for the Government to give to MPs what they had already freely given to the world’s media? Will the Leader of the House now confirm that he will make simultaneously available to this House any future press briefings, especially on the autumn statement and next year’s Budget?

The front pages have been full of the unedifying war between the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary on the Government’s strategy to combat extremism. It appears that separate approaches are being pursued in two different Government Departments, while the Communities Secretary is nowhere to be seen. The briefing is poisonous and the Prime Minister is said to be furious. The Government should be protecting our young people from coming under the influence of extremist ideas. Instead, they appear to be preoccupied with conducting a proxy leadership battle in the Conservative party. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is too important to be treated in this contemptuous way? May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on which of his warring Cabinet Ministers is actually in charge of this vital issue that is crucial to our national security?

Yesterday we heard this Government’s last-gasp legislative programme before the general election, but they have been so busy briefing and counter-briefing over whether the Queen’s Speech is blue rinse or yellow round the edges that they have left the big strategic questions that our country faces completely unanswered. This was a programme that failed to rise to the challenge. Plastic bags were in, but the crisis in the NHS was not even mentioned. There was no mention of immigration, no action on energy prices and no sign of the promised restrictions on cigarette packaging.

The programme outlined yesterday was so modest that even The Daily Telegraph could only call it “light touch”. Her Majesty might just as well have said, “Members of the Commons and Lords, my Government will switch between chillaxing and playing Fruit Ninja from now until the general election.”

We are well used to this coalition fighting, but things have now got so bad that both parties are turning on themselves. The Education Secretary is openly disparaging the Home Secretary, and she is briefing against him. I know he is classically trained, but I think he should beware the ides of May.

The Liberal Democrats have been as successful at organising a coup as they are at everything else. Lord Oakeshott has stormed off, denouncing his party for having

“no roots, no principles and no values.”

I think many of us would agree with that statement. Then we were treated to an excruciating show of enforced unity between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary over a pint down the pub. I must say that they looked like they were enjoying each other’s company about as much as they were enjoying the beer. They were in a pub called No Hope and No Anchor. I have thought of a suitable pub for this Government, too: it is called Cock and Bull, serves only bitter and the British public cannot wait for last orders to be called.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement. She made quite a good joke about May, but unfortunately we are in June.

I completely share the hon. Lady’s view that tomorrow—the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings—offers an opportunity to commemorate the tremendous sacrifice, remember the great importance of the event and celebrate the participation of those who, happily, are still with us. I was particularly interested to read about Jock Hutton, aged 89, who is going to take a parachute drop. That is testament to not only the kind of men they were, but the kind of men they continue to be, which is fantastic.

On the question of business, I am slightly surprised that the shadow Leader of the House still does not quite get it. In this Parliament, we have decided to give the Backbench Business Committee and Back Benchers access to nearly a day a week to raise the subjects they consider to be of greatest priority. That is important. It is not the case that the only purpose of this House is to scrutinise and pass legislation. I am firmly of the opinion that less legislation that is better scrutinised is a good thing.

[Official Report, 9 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1-2MC.]As it happens, in the last Session we passed 20 Bills, while in the penultimate Session of the previous Parliament, 18 Bills were passed. An interesting contrast is that in the last Session, 24 Bills had two days of scrutiny on Report in this Chamber, while the figure for the whole of the previous Parliament was only 10. When it has come down to it, we have been able to accomplish a substantial legislative programme and we will continue to do so in this Session, with better scrutiny and legislation as a result.

The hon. Lady asked for a statement on Monday. Obviously, if summits such as that involving the G7 Ministers discuss something important that should be reported to the House, of course we will do so. I cannot necessarily say that there will be a statement, but we will certainly make sure that the House is fully kept up to date if there are matters that require reporting.

The hon. Lady asked about the press briefing pack. It did not require a point of order by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for it to be provided to the Vote Office. It was provided in hard copy form yesterday morning, along with a link enabling Members to access it electronically. I am sorry, but that is a fact and the point of order came after it had already been provided to the House in that way.

The hon. Lady asked about the question of extremism in schools, and she asked for a statement. Frankly, the appropriate time for a statement will be when Ofsted has produced its report. As far as the question of colleagues working together on the extremism taskforce is concerned, absolutely they are working together. They are working together energetically with the objective not only of taking the issues extremely seriously, but of taking measures that will be effective. As she has seen, the extremism taskforce has already given rise to a range of measures that we have taken to deal with the question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has done so, particularly in relation to questions about schools in Birmingham, including by establishing an inquiry by the retired senior police officer Peter Clarke, which will report back to him this summer.

I thought it was a rather good thing that my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills went to a pub to reassure publicans the length and breadth of this country that this Government will take the action they have very much sought on the relationships of pub tenants with brewery companies. That should be welcomed by the Labour party, rather than otherwise.

The hon. Lady asked about things that were and were not in the Queen’s Speech. I must say that in this case, she has written her script not just without reading the Queen’s Speech, but probably before it was even provided to her. She talks about demanding action on employment agencies, as she did the other day—we have acted on that. She asks for action on the minimum wage—if she cares to look, she will see that that is in the Gracious Speech. The Opposition want to know when we will deal with zero-hours contracts—it is in the Queen’s Speech, as she can see. They want to cut tax for working people—this Government have increased the personal tax allowance to £10,000. They want action on consumer rights—we will debate the remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill during the week after next. She wants action on energy bills—we have just passed the Energy Act 2013, in the last Session. She wants action on immigration—we passed the Immigration Act 2014, which received Royal Assent on 14 May, and its measures are being brought into force. They talk about action on reforming banks—we had two banking reform Acts during the last Session. I am afraid that the Labour party’s only approach seems to be to criticise us by recycling the things we have already done and pretending that we have not done them.

It is very clear what the coalition Government have to do. We just need to get out there and make it absolutely clear that we are taking the measures for which this country is calling. The Labour party has nothing to say and, most importantly, absolutely nothing to say on how to promote economic growth in this country—nothing on more jobs, greater wealth, improving incomes for people. There was a hole bigger than a black hole at the heart of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech yesterday, with absolutely nothing about how to promote the economy in the future.

This party has a long-term economic plan. This Government have a long-term economic plan. We are cutting the deficit, stimulating growth, delivering jobs, promoting schools and skills, capping welfare and controlling immigration. We are the party that is delivering on that plan.

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

May I ask the Leader of the House to grant Government time for an early debate on the groceries code adjudicator and its operations? The price of beef is being severely depressed at the moment, which is having a severe impact on hill farmers the length and breadth of the country. Processors are taking a higher margin, while livestock producers are taking a lower price. It would be timely to review this excellent legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise my hon. Friend time for a debate immediately, but she will note that my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be at the Dispatch Box this time next week to answer questions, and she may wish to raise this with them. I agree with her that the legislation is important, and it is also important for us to ensure that it enables us to act when necessary. In any case, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to respond separately to her about the issues she raises.

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

May we have an early debate on purdah and the way in which Departments apply it? On 20 May, two days before polling day, the headline of the Ilford Recorder website was “King George A&E to remain open beyond 2015, says Health Secretary”. “Axe Halted” was the headline of the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian published on polling day. A leaflet apparently went out saying that it was an official announcement by the Secretary of State for Health. Given that the Leader of the House is a former Secretary of State for Health, would he have issued a leaflet saying that it was an official announcement two days before polling day, in breach of purdah? May we have an early debate on the appropriateness of private offices, officials and Ministers trying to break purdah during election periods?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman refers and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said. It was a restatement of existing policy. There was no announcement. I know that perfectly well because my right hon. Friend was effectively restating what I had said, which was that there would be no changes at King George hospital, Ilford until there were sufficient improvements in the A and E service at Queen’s hospital and the community service that is provided to the local community. That had been announced previously. What is in a leaflet that is provided by a party is not the responsibility of the Government. Purdah does not mean that previous Government announcements and policies cannot be restated. That is all that happened.

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

At the risk of dismissing the British summer before it has even started, many of my constituents are focused on next winter and the rain and floods that it may bring. The Leader of the House will appreciate that there is a short time in which to do the work that is necessary. We are making progress on dredging and on many other things that need to be done in Somerset. The one thing that we need clarity about is the setting up of the new Somerset river authority, the funding stream that will support it and the ongoing maintenance. May we have a debate with or a statement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to provide us with an update on the progress and to enable us to ask questions on our constituents’ behalf?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will remember that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers are looking to make further statements to the House about the lessons that have been learned and about establishing greater resilience. Those will apply especially to Somerset, where we have made specific commitments. I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends when they might be able to update him and the House about that matter in Somerset and more widely.

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

May we have a debate on funding for disabled students? The Government announced recently that there would be changes to the disabled students allowance, which enables such students to fund some of the costs associated with their higher education. I understand that there will be a very short consultation on the changes and little time for MPs to consider them before they are presented in secondary legislation. The National Union of Students will be lobbying MPs in their constituencies on the matter tomorrow. It is important that this House has the chance to discuss and debate what it has to say.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, which I will of course discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends. On the short consultation, we have tried to ensure that we are able to press forward more rapidly; therefore, many of our consultations are not as long as they used to be. That the changes will be in the form of secondary legislation affords the House an opportunity to consider them, if necessary. I do not believe that the regulations will be considered under the affirmative procedure, but that does not mean that they cannot be the subject of consideration in this House if Members so choose.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on immigration, particularly from within the EU? If there is one lesson that all parties need to learn from the recent elections, it is that the public are sick to the back teeth of open borders with the EU and unlimited immigration from within the EU. Surely the least that they can expect from this House is a debate on the subject, so that as we go into the general election, everybody’s constituents know where their Member of Parliament stands on the issue. If the Leader of the House wants to tie that in with a debate on who should be the next European Commissioner, I am happy to go along with that.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that he will have an opportunity to raise that issue in the debate on the Queen’s Speech on Tuesday. During that debate, I hope it will be possible to make it plain how the Government have already acted, such that non-EU net migration is down by a third; non-EU migration is at the lowest level since the late 1990s; economic immigration from outside the EU is capped; for those from within the EU, jobseeker benefits are limited to just six months and entitlement to housing benefit has been removed; and EU migrants are barred from re-entry following removal. The Opposition and the Government share the view that it is important to enforce the minimum wage. We are increasing the maximum fine for payment below the minimum wage to £20,000 per employee.

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

Free and fair elections are fundamental to all of us. Further to the elections in Tower Hamlets on 22 May, with allegations of intimidation outside polling stations and irregularities inside, anomalies with postal voting, the chaos of a four-and-a-half-day count, and yesterday a statement from the Metropolitan police that there have been arrests in connection with these elections, can the Leader of the House advise me whether I should look out for a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government on local government, from the Home Office on the police, from the Cabinet Office on the Electoral Commission, or whether another Department will take a lead on this very important matter for east London?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. The Government completely share his view that the integrity of our elections is absolutely central to our democracy. As he knows, returning officers are responsible for the running of elections, and Parliament has given the power to monitor the conduct of elections to the Electoral Commission. It is therefore crucial that the commission ensure a swift investigation into any issues of concern in Tower Hamlets, and that it establish the truth and communicate it, including through the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the point because it enables us to say that if anybody in Tower Hamlets knows of anything that causes concern about the integrity of the election, we encourage them to ring 101 and contact the police.

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

Some 5,260 businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough should benefit from the changes to the employment allowance that the Government are making to employer national insurance contributions. Across the country, those changes add up to £1 billion off the cost base of companies, and smaller companies will benefit disproportionately. May we have a debate to explore the impact of business tax changes on job creation, and on how rolling back the tax on jobs boosts employment and business growth?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a timely point. Right now many businesses are appreciating the importance of that employment allowance in reducing the costs of employment. The changes are proportionately much more significant for smaller businesses and those taking on additional staff as they grow, which is tremendous. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to debate the issue with colleagues in the Queen’s Speech debate on Wednesday next week, and I hope we might also get an answer from the Leader of the Opposition that we did not get yesterday. When we came to office, we immediately scrapped Labour’s proposed jobs tax. We have further reduced the cost of employment, and seen employment rise by more than 1.5 million. The Labour party now appears to propose that if it ever gets its hands on the levers of power again, one of the first things it will do will be to increase the jobs tax significantly again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The news this morning about the death of a baby in hospital and 14 others who are seriously injured concerns not only the families and parents but staff in hospitals. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Health Secretary and ensure that he comes to the House to explain what happened and to reassure parents and Members of Parliament? Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this matter has caused ripples of concern to each and every one of us.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I am sure that all Members of the House want to express our deepest sympathy to the parents and family of the baby who died, and indeed our concern to the other parents whose children were infected and have suffered, but who hopefully are now recovering. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard, these issues are being pursued rapidly and urgently by Public Health England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It is clear from what they have said that the batch that may have been infected—we do not know precisely how, but this is where the evidence points—has been recalled. That batch has a short shelf life, so there is no prospect of further infections as a consequence. I feel strongly about this because two of the infected babies were at Addenbrooke’s hospital in my constituency. The first thing was to ensure that no further risk will result from this unfortunate event, and the second is to investigate and ensure that we know what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. If it is to do with the manufacturing process, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is responsible for that. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department of Health will want to report to the House when those two agencies have thoroughly completed their work.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Opposition have not—for the second year running, I think—allocated a day during the debate on the Queen’s Speech to foreign affairs or defence? Perhaps he could organise that in Government time. There are many things going on in the world that cannot always be debated in these circumstances but on which we need a debate. Also, the Opposition have been talking about pubs, but does he agree that the last time they were in charge of the brewery, they could not organise any form of event at all?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend: it is regrettable. Obviously, competing issues require time during debates on the Queen’s Speech—it is the Opposition’s choice in these matters—but for two years in a row they have chosen not to debate foreign affairs or defence. Frankly, this year, when the events in Syria and Ukraine are immediate, critical and of widespread concern, it is regrettable that the Opposition did not give the House an opportunity to have a debate of that kind.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I think we are all agreed that we need an urgent debate on international affairs. In that respect, will the Leader of the House be more precise about when the Prime Minister will make a statement after the G7 summit? He was unable to say categorically that that would be the case. Will he confirm that there will be an opportunity at the appropriate time for a debate on the renewal or otherwise of the US-UK mutual defence agreement, which comes up for review this year and should be debated properly by this House, so that we can understand our relationship militarily with the United States and, of course, with NATO?

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess—the hon. Gentleman will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that I do not recall a debate taking place previously on the US-UK mutual defence agreement.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It was in 2005.

[Mr Lansley]

He does correct me. I will look at the precedent and we will discuss internally whether a debate of that kind is appropriate. Clearly, in the run-up to the NATO summit, which we are pleased the United Kingdom will be hosting in Wales at the beginning of September, those issues will be important in themselves, and the UK-US defence relationship is an instrumental part of that.

On the point about a statement following the G7, the fact is simply that this Prime Minister has made more statements than any of his predecessors and is always willing to come to inform the House. However, at this point I am not in a position to confirm a statement or its timing. In part, that will depend—as all statements do—on the nature of the event to which the statement refers. We are waiting to see the outcome of the discussions taking place in and around the G7 meeting, to see the extent to which it is necessary to announce changes in policy, or events, to the House.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome, and thank Ministers for, the news that the Government have adopted in a Government Bill a number of the key measures in my ten-minute rule Bill on patients’ rights to patient data, which hon. Members lucky enough to be drawn high in the ballot next week might like to consider—a Bill for the integration of health and care records for all patients across the NHS and the care sector, which is key to raising standards and preventing some of the appalling events that we saw uncovered through the Francis report. May we have a debate on the importance of medical records in three key areas: supporting research for 21st-century medicines; driving the revolution of accountability and transparency; and the revolution of empowerment, which is key to 21st-century medicine?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope my hon. Friend knows that I share his sense of how profoundly important the proper use of the UK’s asset, or in this instance, England’s asset—NHS data—can be. When patients and the public generally are asked whether they are content for their data to be used to enable treatments and research to be promoted for all patients in future, as long as we give them the proper protection for their anonymity and confidentially, they are very much in favour. That is the point we are trying to get to.

My hon. Friend mentions something that will be important this coming week: that Back-Bench colleagues take every opportunity to put their names forward for the private Members’ Bill ballot. He instances one issue, but it would be very much in the interests of the people of this country if a number of others were brought forward under the banner of a private Member’s Bill.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) pointed out how little legislation the Government are bringing forward, but they are also evading accountability to this House on a week-by-week basis. In the four months between the beginning of May and the beginning of September, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will come to the Chamber only once to answer oral questions. Will the Leader of the House tell us what the Department has to hide?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure the hon. Lady understands that the rota for questions is a standard process. When the House is sitting, we answer questions in the normal way. I have to say that the premise of her question is somewhat misplaced. As I explained to the shadow Leader, 20 Bills were passed in the previous parliamentary Session. In the penultimate Session of the previous Parliament, 18 Bills were passed.

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

In the light of the European Commission’s report on the UK economy, may we please have a debate on the unwanted interference in this country’s affairs by unelected Brussels bureaucrats? Considering the economic performance of the eurozone, surely they are the last people the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be taking advice from.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recognise that to some extent the reporting process is a hangover from the convergence processes that were agreed many years ago in relation to the euro. We have to recognise that it is perfectly proper for any organisation, whether governmental or otherwise, to issue economic reports and to offer comments. What is critical is what we are achieving—that is what really matters. The European Commission and other countries are very much looking to achieve right across the eurozone—we have heard other countries make this very clear—the kind of dynamism in growth and job creation that we are seeing in this country. That is not happening at the moment and we want it to happen in the future. I think the message is heading more in that direction than it is in the other.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the past few weeks I have had representations from many constituents about delays in the Passport Office. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of these problems, and will he make time for a ministerial statement on what action will be taken to resolve them?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that—indeed, I have raised constituency cases of my own. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration at the Home Office to make a written statement to the House to explain what is happening, the nature of the delays and what steps are being taken to reduce them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A number of my constituents have raised with me their concerns that the long-awaited Bill to ban wild animals from circuses was not included in the Queen’s Speech. A number of us have supported such legislation for several years—indeed, this House has resolved that such legislation should be passed. Given that the Bill need not be that long, what are the reasons for the its not being included in the Queen’s Speech? Will the Leader of the House seek to correct that at the earliest opportunity?

[Mr Lansley]

The reason is very straightforward: we had more bids for parliamentary time than we had time. We have to be robust in prioritising the measures we bring forward. We are prioritising measures that, as my hon. Friend will have seen in the Gracious Address, further promote the economic recovery and a fairer society. What he says is important and we will, as we have said previously, find time for it when parliamentary time allows.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I would welcome a debate on that issue. Under the previous Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pledged to ban wild animals in circuses. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), with cross-party support, has a draft Bill that the Government have now brought forward, yet, as the hon. Member for Kettering said, there is no action from the Government. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that this will happen during the last nine months of this Parliament in one shape or another?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot give that commitment. In the Gracious Address we explained the Bills that we were proposing to bring forward. In a Session that, by its nature, can last no more than nine months and has a number of carry-over Bills, and with no scope to carry over Bills from this Session, there is a limit on the number of Government Bills. We have announced where our priorities lie, and, for the moment, time does not permit us to go beyond that.

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

So much happened in Suffolk over the recess but I will restrict myself to one matter: actions being taken by the Food Standards Agency on outdoor pigs, of which there are a lot in Suffolk. I am very concerned about heavy-handed regulations, and it seems that a deal has been done with the marketing agency to require only outdoor pigs, as opposed to the vast majority of pigs, to be tested for trichinella. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on this important matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to my hon. Friend on that matter, but if she wishes to raise it, I point out that DEFRA questions next Thursday would provide a suitable opportunity.

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

Last year I persuaded HMRC to investigate employment agencies in my constituency. It found that 12 were not paying the minimum wage to some of their workers. On 12 February in this House, the Prime Minister promised me that he would overcome Treasury resistance to naming and shaming them. It is now June and that still has not happened. Will the Leader of the House look into it and give the Prime Minister a nudge?

[Mr Lansley]

I shall of course look into it. I remember the Prime Minister saying that, and I am sure that he delivers on all his promises. I am sure that we are delivering on enforcement on the minimum wage in a way that did not happen in the last Parliament, when there were very few enforcements. We are increasing penalties, and as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the Queen’s Speech, we are proposing to make sure that the minimum wage is properly enforced.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

In my constituency we are seeing a welcome increase in house building and, in particular, extra care homes, including 300 care homes for returning service men and women of the Royal Signals, who are to be based in Stafford. May we have a debate on not only the number but the type of homes we need? Many of my constituents say that what they would really like are small, single-storey and energy-efficient homes to allow them to downsize and free up those two, three and four-bedroom family homes of which I think sometimes we build too many.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend refers to those positive developments in Stafford, and to the kind of homes that are being built and the purposes for which they are built. That is welcome. From the dreadful low point that we inherited from the previous Government, we are seeing more housing starts. We are promoting house building, and as my hon. Friend will have seen in the Queen’s Speech, we will take yet more measures to stimulate house building further, including in garden cities, and in terms of the availability of more land from public sector assets. The type of housing is an interesting question. I agree that we need an increase in care homes, as we have an ageing population. That will enable older people to move out of large and increasingly expensive family homes that they no longer need to something that they feel is very much theirs without compromising on the quality of housing. My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to debate this today in the course of the subjects for debate on the Queen’s Speech.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we debate the need to provide closure for the grieving families of the 179 brave British soldiers who were killed in the Iraq war? They demand the truth, the whole truth and every syllable of the truth, and not a censored Chilcot report that will, in John Major’s view, result in suspicions that will fester for years of an establishment cover-up?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that an agreement was reached during the prorogation between Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry and the Government about the terms on which information will be made available and can be published. That is very much welcome, and it enables us to look forward to the publication of the Chilcot inquiry.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on schools admission policies and the appeals process because some parents in my part of west Yorkshire—the Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley—are struggling with the process of trying to get their children into good-quality local schools, which are overcrowded, and sometimes struggling even to get their children into schools where they already have siblings?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely sympathise with my hon. Friend, not least because I know from similar constituency cases about the importance parents attach to this endeavour and about the frustrations they often suffer in trying to understand some of the criteria that apply to school admissions. The admissions code was reformed under the last Government and has been further improved under this one, but if I may, I will ask my right hon. Friends at the Department for Education to come back to my hon. Friend on this issue, which would be helped if he were able to add further information about this particular case.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Like all Members, I welcome the falling levels of unemployment, but what I do not welcome is the explosion in the number of low-paid, part-time jobs with individuals often placed on zero-hours contracts. When will the House have the opportunity to have a full and proper debate about rising levels of in-work poverty?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady might like to note that full-time employment was up on the last quarter by 176,000 and that 573,000 more people are in full-time work than a year ago. This is not just about an increase in part-time employment because there has been a substantial increase in full-time employment. The truth of the matter is that we are seeing not only big increases in employment, but increases in wages, too. As can be seen from the March data, the increase in wages was slightly higher than the increase in inflation.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the conduct of SpAds—special advisers—because the Prime Minister is clearly not going to sack Cabinet Ministers over the unseemly rows we have seen between the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary? The conduits for some of the most poisonous briefings are SpAds, and that is in breach of the code of conduct. According to press reports, Fiona Cunningham, the Home Secretary’s special adviser, had her card marked in March for this kind of behaviour. Will the Prime Minister now sack her, or is he too weak to act?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me reiterate what I said earlier: my colleagues and their teams are working together well for this purpose. We have robust discussions inside government. Can the hon. Gentleman honestly look me in the eye and tell me that the robust discussions we have inside this Government are worse than the kind of discussions that took place under the previous Government? They are not worse, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The last Government were riven; this Government are working together as a coalition and between parties in this Government.

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

May we have an urgent debate on the importance of volunteering to our communities and to many local organisations? I understand that you, Mr Speaker, will be attending an event on this very subject in Cardiff this evening. Tomorrow, together with other Members, I will attend cross-party events to support volunteers in our communities for the difference they make to them.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Volunteers week, in the first week of June, provides an important opportunity every year to say a big thank you to the millions of volunteers across the UK for their fantastic contribution. We are putting in place measures and funds to grow volunteering opportunities. We have invested £20 million in 40 organisations through the social action fund. That in itself has created opportunities for more than half a million new volunteers. I hope that we will all, as he rightly says, take the opportunity this week to celebrate volunteers in our constituencies.

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

The Crown court in Hull has come to a near standstill owing to the fact that criminal solicitors are refusing to apply for legal aid representation orders in Crown court proceedings. So bad is the situation that the recorder of Hull Crown court has issued a practice direction advising defendants who are unrepresented how to conduct the proceedings. May we please have an urgent debate on this issue and the fact that the criminal justice system is in complete chaos due to the Lord Chancellor simply not understanding the issues?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary. There is a central issue here: across Government, we must cut our coat according to our cloth. We must make savings, and that includes savings in a legal aid budget which, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, was by far and away the most generous in the developed world. Making those savings has entailed difficult decisions. However, the hon. Gentleman raised important points in relation to Hull. I entirely understand why he did so, and I will ask my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to respond to him on those points.