Legislation (2013-14 Session)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Written Statements

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

Following the conclusion of business in the House on Wednesday 14 May 2014, I expect Parliament to be prorogued until 4 June, concluding the current 2013-14 parliamentary Session. Subject to proceedings today, 28 Bills will have received Royal Assent in the 2013-14 Session:

Government Bills:

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing

Care

Children and Families¹

Defence Reform

Energy¹

European Union (Approvals)

Finance¹

Financial Services (Banking Reform)¹

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising)

High Speed Rail (Preparation)

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Local Audit and Accountability

Marriage (Same Sex Couples)¹

Mesothelioma

National Insurance Contributions

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Offender Rehabilitation

Pensions

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration

Water Bill

Consolidation and Law Commission Bills:

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies

Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers

Private Members’ Bills:

Citizenship (Armed Forces)

Deep Sea Mining

House of Lords Reform (No. 2)

International Development (Gender Equality)

Leasehold Reform (Amendment)

The following Government Bills introduced in this Session will carry-over, resuming their passage in the next Session:

Consumer Rights

Criminal Justice and Courts

Deregulation

Finance (No.2)

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands)²

Wales

Further Bills for the next Session of Parliament will be announced on Wednesday 4 June 2014.

Notes:

¹Denotes Bills introduced in the previous Session which were carried-over and completed their passage in this Session.

²Denotes a hybrid Bill.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 12 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Care Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 13 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill (day 1), followed by motion relating to the Standards Committee report on all-party parliamentary groups, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 14 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Deregulation Bill (day 1), followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 15 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Friday 16 May—The House will not be sitting.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for what looks to be the last business statement before the end of this Session. Will he confirm that the House now looks likely to prorogue more than a week before the recess date that he originally announced?

The horrific kidnap of nearly 300 schoolgirls by a terrorist group in Nigeria has rightly been condemned by leaders across the international community. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Foreign Secretary so that he can tell us what support the UK Government are offering to help locate and rescue these young women?

On Tuesday, the Business Secretary told the House that he will not “rule out intervention” on Pfizer’s attempted takeover of AstraZeneca, which may threaten UK jobs in the strategically important pharmaceutical sector, but the Prime Minister seems to be a cheerleader for it. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, he failed to tell the House whether he would work with the Opposition to deliver a public interest test. That would need only secondary legislation, so perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us now: will the Government work with us to introduce such a test quickly so that the UK can safeguard its strategic interests in this sector, which is so crucial both to our research and development and our science base? Will he arrange for the Business Secretary to come to the House so that he can tell us exactly what the Government’s position now is on this crucial issue?

Coalition chaos on AstraZeneca is just the tip of the iceberg according to a report published yesterday by the Institute for Government. It warns that the Government are in danger of seizing up altogether as the election approaches. Some of us think that they already have. There are now credible complaints that civil service impartiality is being compromised by the partisan and inappropriate demands for policy advice from warring coalition parties. To provide reassurance and transparency, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he supports the Institute for Government’s sensible calls for the publication of civil service engagement rules for this final year so that we can have both clarity and oversight of the Government’s behaviour? Does he also agree with the institute that:

“The access that the two coalition parties will have to the civil service in the pre-election period strengthens the case for offering more extensive civil service support to the Opposition”?

The Government’s habit of believing that policy delivery ends with sending out the press release just gets worse. In November 2011, the Department for Work and Pensions said:

“Over one million people will be claiming Universal Credit by April 2014”.

But when April 2014 arrived, fewer than 4,000 people were on a pale imitation of the proposed regime.

In July 2007, the current Leader of the House said in a press release that there would be no top-down reorganisations of the NHS, but four years into this Government, what do we have? We have a disastrous and expensive top-down reorganisation of the NHS. This week, we have learned that the much trumpeted NHS better care fund has been delayed, after a Whitehall review declared that it would not work, would not help balance the budget and would not bring about the promised revolution in patient care. Is not the truth that the better care fund was a knee-jerk reaction to Labour’s policy on the integration of health and social care, and that the Government’s own legislation is standing in the way of proper integration? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Health Secretary so that he can urgently clarify the status of the better care fund?

There are now just two weeks to go until the local and European elections. The Conservative party has frantically been trying to paint the Leader of the Opposition as a mixture of Karl Marx and Hugo Chávez, the UK Independence party has been hiring eastern Europeans to deliver its anti-immigration leaflets, and the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have resorted to backing a report that calls for the legalisation of cannabis. I suppose mind-altering drugs are the only thing that might persuade people to vote for him. At his campaign launch on Monday, he was reduced to pleading with his activists to shout from the rooftops about Liberal Democrat achievements. I think they might be safer on the roof than they would be on the doorstep.

What about those Liberal Democrat achievements? The Deputy Prime Minister promised to scrap tuition fees, but he trebled them. He promised he would not raise VAT, but he raised it. He promised fair taxes, but he gave tax breaks to millionaires while everyone else pays more. This week, scientists have discovered a new dinosaur with a very long nose, and they have named it Pinocchio rex. I think maybe they should just have called it Nick.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response. She will be aware that only once business is concluded can we be certain of the precise timing of Prorogation, so as is customary, Prorogation will be announced once all the Government’s business required in this Session has been secured.

The hon. Lady was right to ask about Nigeria, and she will have heard what the Prime Minister said about that. We are all shocked by what has been happening there, including the kidnapping of the girls and the other terrorist attacks. As the hon. Lady will know, the Foreign Secretary has been in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova this week, but I will of course talk to the Foreign Office about how we might take an opportunity to update the House not only on his visit this week but on the steps that he has taken on Nigeria, including the contacts that he has had with the Nigerian Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister’s discussion with the President of Nigeria, which was scheduled to take place yesterday afternoon.

One point in the Institute for Government’s report is about making progress in this final year. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said in Question Time, we cannot anticipate the Queen’s Speech, but I can assure the House that there will be a full programme of legislative business for it to consider.

I would remind the House of the sheer scale of the legislative achievement that has been accomplished in this Session. Opposition Members had the opportunity to support much of it, such as legislation on same-sex marriage; on shared parental leave; on the establishment of single-tier pensions; on reforms to speed up adoption; on giving children in care new time limits on their care proceedings, to reduce delays; on introducing special, additional measures for children with special educational needs, including care plans; on establishing the principles of High Speed 2 and the Select Committee on the Bill; on electricity market reform and investment in our energy infrastructure; on investment in the water industry; and on protection for householders seeking insurance against flooding.

The Opposition did not seem quite so keen on some things, of course, such as the employment allowance, which will give 1.25 million businesses and charities the benefit of £2,000 off their employer’s national insurance bill. There is also banking reform; criminal justice; the reform of antisocial behaviour law; and those who leave prison having served fewer than 12 months will receive supervision to reduce reoffending. I think that in any year, any Government could be proud of the scale of the legislative achievements undertaken.

You know how loth I am, Mr Speaker, to engage in any kind of partisan activity at the Dispatch Box, so I will not engage in electioneering. I will just say that the parties of the coalition Government can go into the local and European elections not least on the strength of our long-term economic plan working. We are seeing some of the best growth figures, and indeed forecasts for the United Kingdom to be among the strongest growing economies in the developed world. We debate many things about Europe, but we all know that to be a strong country we need a strong economy. That is what this coalition Government are delivering through our long-term economic plan.

The hon. Lady asked about the Pfizer-AstraZeneca merger, and she will have heard what the Prime Minister said in response to the Leader of the Opposition. She asked for a statement; the Business Secretary was at the Dispatch Box just 48 hours ago to answer questions from the House. I think he did so very clearly. He made clear a number of things, including the point that Pfizer has not as yet made a formal bid, and that from the Government’s point of view there is open-handed neutrality. We have engaged with both companies to establish their positions and what their commitments may be. If there are further developments, I know that the Business Secretary will engage the House. I have substantial constituency interests in relation to both Pfizer and AstraZeneca. The shadow Leader of the House will therefore understand that I am not party inside Government to discussions relating directly to Pfizer and AstraZeneca, and I am not able to go beyond what my friends have said at the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement on forthcoming business. He will know that the Procedure Committee has a report on private Members’ Bills waiting to be reviewed by the House, and I look forward to debating that with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who will represent a sort of Darth Vader of dark forces in that area. May I suggest to the Leader of the House that next Tuesday might be a good time for that titanic struggle and battle to take place?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I do not necessarily endorse his views on my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who, along with other Members, has enabled us to assert with confidence that private Members’ Bills that secure the agreement of the House must jump a high bar, and rightly so. Making legislation should not be easy, although my recollection is that, subject to further debate next week in the House of Lords, five private Members’ Bills may have secured Royal Assent this Session.

We have had constructive debates with the Procedure Committee, and I would like the House to have the opportunity to debate further reforms to private Members’ Bills. As yet I do not have a time fixed for that, but I will take on board what my hon. Friend has said and consider when we can do that.

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

As there is now no more time available for Back-Bench business before the end of the Session, will the Leader of the House allow me to make an announcement disguised as a question, to let the House know that the Backbench Business Committee has now closed its doors until after the Queen’s Speech when our successor Committee is elected? I thank all hon. Members who have served on the Committee, and all those who have used it and brought such interesting debates before the House. I have enjoyed the representations made.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and endorse what she says. I am pleased that in this Session we have been able to allocate more time for debates determined by the Backbench Business Committee than the Standing Orders required, just as we provided three more days for Opposition day debates than is required by the Standing Orders. The Clerk’s letter to Mr Speaker made clear the scrutiny that this House is undertaking, and the Backbench Business Committee’s progress in this Session has demonstrated an essential part of that enhanced scrutiny.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend, in the oodles of time available, make sure that there is a Government statement next week on holiday pay? Does he know that there is much concern among employers about the interaction between European Union law and British law? It is causing confusion and leading people to believe that holiday pay will have to be based not just on basic salaries, but overtime and additional work? This is a complex issue, but at the moment the Government do not seem to have a clear policy.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I may, I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply to him, and if, as he says, there is widespread confusion on this issue, to let the House know what it can do to dispel that confusion.

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

In 2010, there was the highest ever level of satisfaction with the NHS. A report this week by the Care Quality Commission on hospitals in Hull shows deteriorating services and staff shortages. May we please have a debate on the cost to the NHS of the £3 billion spent on reorganisation, on the fact that that has meant deteriorating services, and on Hull not receiving a penny of the £250 million provided for A and E services over the winter?

[Mr Lansley]

A number of questions were wrapped into that. The latest British social attitudes survey showed a 61% satisfaction rating with the NHS. That is an increase on the previous year and the third highest figure since 1983. One of the reasons why people are satisfied with the NHS is that the service is not deteriorating. On the contrary, we have kept to our coalition agreement to increase the resources for the NHS in real terms. Those resources are being used more effectively across the NHS, including saving nearly £1.5 billion a year through the reorganisation the hon. Lady describes. That cost about £1.5 billion to implement, but will save £1.5 billion a year—more than £5 billion in the course of this Parliament.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The widespread increase in rolling stock spoken about by the Transport Secretary earlier today is welcome news for commuters, but it is creating great anxiety for my constituents who work at the Cauldwell Walk depot and manage the current rolling stock. They know that they will not manage the future rolling stock, but they do not know when that transition will take place. Despite their own best efforts and mine, parliamentary questions and requests to speak with Ministers have been met with a wall of silence because of the franchise renegotiation. This has led them to consider all possible options, including the withdrawal of their labour, something that could lead to strike action and disruption. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on what options I have in Parliament to pursue this matter further?

[Mr Lansley]

I can understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this matter and the desire of the staff at the depot to have greater clarity on their future position. I will certainly urge the future franchisee to engage with the affected work force to provide that clarity as soon as possible. He does, I am afraid, say correctly that we cannot divulge at this stage the details of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise bidders’ plans for rolling stock or maintenance. That is commercially sensitive information in a live bidding process. We currently expect all depot staff currently employed to transfer to the successor franchisee at the outset. It will then be for that operator to decide how best to manage the maintenance of the fleet. It is not yet possible to give firm assurances on the nature of depot posts. However, as I am sure he would expect, I will ensure that Ministers are happy, once an announcement has been made, to discuss this matter with him, and for other interested Members of Parliament, staff and unions to be able to engage directly with the successful bidder.

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

Given today’s poll demonstrating that the public believe that the NHS is deteriorating under this Government’s rule, may we have a debate on why that is, and may we have some indication of how they intend to repair the damage they have done?

[Mr Lansley]

What is very clear is that after the election we actually managed to eliminate many of the long waits that patients were experiencing. Approximately 180,000 people had been waiting over a year for treatment and we have reduced that figure to below 1,000. That is what people across the country are experiencing in the NHS. The NHS, with rising demand, is managing to use its resources more effectively to sustain the quality of services.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Nikki Sams was just 26 when she died of cervical cancer. Her doctor failed to spot the symptoms eight times but escaped any disciplinary action by retiring, despite having been investigated previously. May we have a statement on when the General Medical Council will get the powers it needs to change the Cohen judgment, which restricts accountability, and allow it to appeal against lenient sentences, as doctors can appeal against sentences they regard as too harsh?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall discuss with my colleagues in the Department of Health. My hon. Friend will recall, not least following the Law Commission report, that there are plans and legislative proposals for the further reform of health professional regulation. I will discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health what progress has been made and whether we will be able better to answer my hon. Friend’s precise questions.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I add my voice to the pleas for a statement on the assistance that the UK Government will give to the Nigerian Government to “bring back our girls”. You will know, Mr Speaker, that in northern Nigeria, only 4% of girls get an education. That is both an immediate crisis for the families and a long-term disaster in development terms. Please may we have a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office if they will be able to make a statement; at this stage, I cannot determine whether it will be written or oral. The hon. Lady will recall what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday not only about the outrage we feel, but about the fact that we have offered support to the Nigerian Government. As with other countries, we have officials and members of the armed services in Nigeria who would be able to help, but it is a matter for the Nigerian Government to request help and support and determine the character of the help and support that we are able to give. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that we provide support for the education of 800,000 children—600,000 of whom are girls—in Nigeria.

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

Last week, an article appeared in many national newspapers in which an academic argued that the Hinkley Point deal, which is now going through the European Union to ensure that it is robust, should not be pursued. Hinkley Point is massively important to this country: it will produce a massive amount of electricity and it is needed for the security of our energy supplies. May we please have time to debate this matter, which, along with fracking, must be pushed forward if we are not to see the lights going out in the near future? The attitude taken by such academics is not helpful.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will have to forgive me as I did not read the article to which he refers. From what he says, however, I completely agree with him that the rebuilding of our nuclear fleet is important to the security of energy supply in this country and to meeting our future targets for reducing carbon generation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary, who has kept us informed about this project in the past, would be keen to update us about it in future.

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

Yesterday, Monitor announced that it will be investigating the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust regarding its referral times and governance. This comes just after a trust special briefing stating that its financial gap has gone from £5 million to between £30 million and £50 million in 12 months. May we have a debate on why that foundation trust and others have recently found themselves in such massive deficits? When can we expect the £3.8 billion better care proposals from the Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I confess that I neglected to answer the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House about the better care fund. There is no need for a statement because there has been no slippage in the better care fund. It is to be introduced from April 2015 and it was always anticipated that at this stage Ministers would receive submissions from local authorities together with their clinical commissioning groups on how they propose to use that fund for local plans. In that sense, nothing has changed. As far as the foundation trusts are concerned, it is important to recognise that Monitor is the regulator. If I may, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman’s question to the attention of Monitor’s chief executive and seek a reply about South Tees hospitals.

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

May we have a debate on honesty in sentencing? My Bury North constituents will be astonished and dismayed that anyone such as the convicted armed robber known as the “Skullcracker”, who had been given not just one but 13 life sentences, was being prepared for release in an open prison despite having absconded twice before and committed dozens more armed robberies while at large.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that many Members share my hon. Friend’s view, and rightly so. As he may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has ordered a full review of the case to establish the circumstances of the decision to grant Mr Wheatley temporary release, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on it. However, we know that there is a need for reform of the temporary licensing system, which is why, in March, my right hon. Friend announced plans to scale down access to temporary licences. In future, when prisoners are let out on temporary licence, they will be tagged, more strictly risk-assessed, and tested in the community under strict conditions before being released. That will ensure that we make more effective use of release on temporary licence, and take the steps that are necessary to maintain public safety.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Three years ago, the Government announced that 261 schools would benefit from the priority schools building programme, but so far only 28 have done so. May we have a statement on the Government’s use of “prioritisation”, given that 10.7279% does not really reflect a good priority?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I do not recall the precise number of schools that have already benefited from the programme, but I am pretty sure that the last figure that I heard was higher than the one given by the hon. Gentleman. I will check with the Department for Education, and ensure that we are both informed of the latest figure.

I am sure that, along with other Members on both sides of the House, the hon. Gentleman welcomed the announcement a fortnight ago of a further £2 billion for the priority schools building programme. That money will enable us not only to rebuild schools and build new ones where necessary—which was made possible by the first tranche of funding—but to help schools with rebuilding or refurbishment. Over the next few years, it will make a big difference to our school estate.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

May I, as a free marketeer, request a debate on the universal service obligation in the postal industry? In my constituency, TNT has been able to come in and cherry-pick some of the more lucrative parts of the postal service, thus posing a threat to the universal service obligation. Recently, when cleaning out a river in Colindale, I found a bundle of letters that someone from TNT had dumped without delivering them. Will a Minister come to the House and make a statement, so that we can ensure that competition in the postal market is fair competition?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course there should be fair competition, and it is the responsibility of Ofcom, as the regulator, to ensure that that is the case. Let me add, however, as one who is equally a believer in free markets, that I think my hon. Friend should welcome—and I am sure he does—the fact that, in its private sector capacity which enables it to generate private investment to support its business, Royal Mail will be increasingly able not only to meet its universal service obligations, which are unchanged, but to compete in the marketplace.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The consultation on the HS2 route is still ongoing, but last week the Prime Minister was talking about a station near Crewe—as the Secretary of State for Transport continues to do—although no such station is on the route on which consultation is taking place. The Department is talking up the viability of such a station at the expense of the general taxpayer, whereas the Stoke proposals are being worked up at the expense of Stoke ratepayers. May we have a debate, in Government time, on the subversion of consultations and the failure of Departments to follow proper procedures?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand that the phase 2 consultation is proceeding, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that the results will be reported to the House later this year. I am sure that all the submissions are being properly taken into account in the consultation.

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

In this great city of London, which contains more than 10 million people, transport infrastructure and investment are incredibly important. The Mayor has agreed to allow Piccadilly line trains to stop at Turnham Green, in Chiswick, throughout the day. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about investment in the upgrading of the line, when that upgrade might take place, and whether it can happen earlier than planned so that my residents can benefit from a better service on their way to work?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue for Chiswick residents and businesses. She has been campaigning hard on it, with some success, as I understand that she has received confirmation from the Mayor of London, following consultation, that Piccadilly line trains will stop at Turnham Green when the line upgrade has taken place. This Government have provided £10 billion to Transport for London in this Parliament, supporting the biggest upgrade in the London underground for 60 years. Passengers using Turnham Green station will see real benefits, including a 24-hour service through the night on Fridays and Saturdays from later this month, and improvements to the District line in 2016 and 2018. As she asked, once the Piccadilly line has been upgraded, London Underground plans to stop trains at Turnham Green all day.

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

May I add my weight to the representations made by the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Friends asking for an early statement from the Health Secretary about the future of the better care fund? I participated in a visit to look at a pilot in Greenwich in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and there is another pilot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). It is important that we know about the futures of those pilots and the entire fund.

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman planned his question but did not listen to the answer I just gave. There is no change in the planning for the better care fund. In response to what he and the shadow Leader of the House said, I should point out that this Government have taken the necessary steps to further integrate health and social care delivery. We made significant resources available to local authorities, in each of the first two years of this Parliament, to support social care-health service interaction. The health and wellbeing boards are creating a powerful structural mechanism to enable that to happen, and the better care fund will put the resources behind that capacity to deliver integrated care.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

On state visits and certain other occasions—although, interestingly, not during the recent Irish state visit—flags of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and the overseas territories are flown from Parliament square and then taken down. May we have a statement from the Culture Secretary on the possibility of flags of the constituent countries of the UK and the overseas territories flying full-term from Parliament square?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is of course a noted vexillologist, a fact that I thought I should draw to the attention of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

He’s flagged that up.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, and my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in heraldry as well.

Currently the flags of the Commonwealth are flown in Parliament square for Commonwealth day. Flags also fly on the square for Europe day and UN day, and the flags of the overseas territories and the Commonwealth dependencies fly for Trooping the Colour and London state visits. Any unscheduled flag-flying outside of designated days and ceremonial occasions in Parliament square would require the approval of both Buckingham palace and the Earl Marshal. Parliament square is also managed by the Greater London authority, which schedules events throughout the year, so there might be a loss of revenue if flags are flown throughout the year and access to the square is restricted. To that extent, I am afraid there is not a simple yes-no answer, but my hon. Friend asked an interesting question to which there is, I hope, an interesting answer.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is clear from the Leader of the House’s statement that there are really only two reasons why the Government are staggering on. One is that they passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the other is that not every Liberal Democrat has yet been given a knighthood, a damehood or a turn as a Government Minister. As it is so hard to kill zombies off, why does the Leader of the House not announce the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act so that we can put an end to this long night of the living dead?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman may have read the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report of this week which, among other things, said the planning and certainty given by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has been very useful. When he hears the Queen’s Speech and sees the future legislative programme, he will see that this Government are using that certainty of being able to deliver a fourth Session programme very effectively.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Following reform of the common agricultural policy, farmers in my constituency are keen to know about, and have clarification on, the new greening rules. Will the Leader of the House make a statement so that farmers know what to expect and how to plan for the coming year?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and see what they can say to provide the certainty that my hon. Friend and his farmers would appreciate.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is obviously grappling with how to fill up the hours of the day and the days of the week. Instead of ending the Session next week, why does he not spend a week allowing as many private Members’ Bills and ten-minute rule Bills as possible to be debated? In that way, Parliament could become a real debating Chamber, enabling us to debate the issues that affect ordinary Members of this House rather than being sent into yet another recess because the Government have run out of business.

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that there is some kind of fantasy going on. Next week, I have announced three days of Government business—Report stages of three Bills. I did not notice the Labour party recognising that by the end of next week, as a consequence of commencing with more than one day on Report on three carry-over Bills, we will have had 11 Bills this Session that will have had more than one day for consideration on Report. There were only 10 Bills that had more than one day’s consideration on Report in the whole of the previous Parliament. I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that this Government are creating much better opportunities for legislative scrutiny.

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

A few weeks ago, a taxi driver in my constituency was subject to a violent alcohol-fuelled attack while working a night shift. Bearing in mind that last year saw a 5.8% increase in assaults on NHS workers, many of which occurred in night-shift time, can we have a debate about what further protections the Government can put in place to protect night workers so that they have a safe environment in which to carry out their business and be free from the threat of assault?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know from my former interest in the health service that it is a matter of considerable concern to health workers that they are kept safe. Assaults on any of our public sector or emergency service workers, on whom we depend, should be treated very seriously. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but it strikes me as a subject that would merit one. Perhaps it would be helpful if my hon. Friend secured an Adjournment debate to discuss those issues.

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

We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) concerns about the way in which Government consultations are being carried out. Does the Leader of the House accept that the public place a great deal of value on the quality of Government consultations, irrespective of the nature and type of Government, and on their open-mindedness, and so on? Does he therefore share my concerns that the consultation on the future of the Land Registry and 600 jobs in Plymouth appears, from board minutes, to have been a total sham? Will he ask the Business Secretary to come to this House and make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask the Business Secretary to respond to the hon. Lady. I do not share her concerns about that matter. It is important to recognise that the Land Registry continues to make greater efficiencies and progress. She will have seen the written ministerial statement made today about the targets that are being set for the Land Registry’s future activities. That is important because of the service that it provides to people in this country.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Despite National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggesting that women up to the age of 42 should be allowed up to three rounds of in vitro fertilisation treatment, women in my local area are offered only one round of IVF treatment up to the age of 35 by the local clinical commissioning group. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on what is effectively a postcode lottery for fertility treatment in the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that these are issues with which parts of the NHS have wrestled for a very long time. My view, and I think the view of the Government, is that clinical commissioning groups, in their responsibility for commissioning, should take full account of the NICE clinical guidelines. NICE has published fertility guidelines, which are not mandatory but are there for a reason. It should be recognised that the recommendation of three full cycles of IVF and the age limit is evidence based. Clinical commissioning groups should look to the evidence. If they do otherwise, large amounts of money will have been spent on investigations of infertility, but the opportunity to maximise the chances of conception in the IVF that follows will be undermined. It is important to use the resources that are used in the investigation to support proper treatment.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituent, Pete Woodcock, is unable to claim jobseeker’s allowance because of treatment for his advanced cancer, yet Atos says that his application for the personal independence payment will not be processed for at least five months. He writes that to make sure that his family can manage, he will be cancelling his treatment and will sign back on jobseeker’s this week. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to explain why PIP is performing so badly and to say what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the development of the personal independence payment system is proceeding in stages and it is important that we get it right. It is geared to the needs of people with disabilities far more than the previous system, under which they were often not subject to assessment for years on end. I recall that the figures for those with life-limiting illnesses showed that a high proportion of those assessments had been undertaken. However, I will look at the figures and ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions responds to him. I am sure that we would be grateful to have the details of any particular case so that we can respond to it.

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

I listened intently to the Leader of the House’s impressive list of legislative achievements, and, following yesterday’s debate, I look forward to the Immigration Bill joining that list, which should really improve our immigration system. However, now that we have listened to the shadow Leader of the House for a number of weeks, will the Leader of the House remind her and the House that this House’s job is not just to be a legislation factory? It is important that we take time to debate important issues, have question sessions and hold Ministers to account as well as passing legislation.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The legislative achievement in the course of this Session has been impressive and the Immigration Bill and the Care Bill, which will, I hope, pass its final stages next week, will add substantially to that list of achievements. He is quite right, too, that our work goes beyond that. It has been depressing week on week to hear the shadow Leader of the House and other Opposition Members interpret debates nominated by the Backbench Business Committee and even their own Opposition day debates as of no consequence. Such debates are the essence of what we do in this place and the fact that in this Session we have been able to give the Opposition and the Backbench Business Committee more days than we were required to while securing Royal Assent for some 20 Bills by the end of the Session is a good use of parliamentary time.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

LUTS, the expert group in lower urinary tract symptoms, held awards this week highlighting best practice in incontinence management and treatment. May we have a debate on incontinence? It is a secret that affects one in five women and 40% of men, and there are dignified ways of managing and treating the affliction. May we discuss it so that people feel greater confidence in going to their GPs and seeking the help that is urgently needed?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Lady and other Members were to seek such a debate, I think that would be a very good thing. The problem affects a large number of people and can be very distressing if it is not well managed. It can be well managed, however, and, from the male point of view, I remember visiting Southampton hospital and seeing some of the nurse-led research projects that went on there. It is doing work to change, update and modernise the technology to support men with incontinence that could and should have been done many years ago, because many of the technologies used for male incontinence are decades old.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House look into the fact that following the impressive renovation of the encaustic tiles in St Stephen’s Lobby, the spot that has traditionally marked the assassination of one of my predecessors, the Member for Northampton, Spencer Perceval, who was Prime Minister in 1812, has been removed? That is an important part of the history of Northampton and of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and perhaps find a replacement?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am sure that I have had the same experience as many other Members of reaching that part in my tour for constituents visiting the Palace and pointing out the tiles that are not in the proper formation. It was a way of enabling us to recall that event at that spot, but I will, if I may, discuss further with the House authorities what their thinking is in this regard and whether we can commemorate that unique event, unhappy as it was.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If Parliament prorogues early, which seems to be in the mind of the Leader of the House, it will be impossible for this House to be summoned, even if the Prime Minister wants it, even if the Leader of the House wants it, even if 649 Members of this House write to the Speaker and demand it, even if the Clerk of the House wants it. We will not be able to sit for three weeks, and during that time, first, there will be elections in Ukraine, which could well be an important flashpoint for NATO troops, let alone anybody else; and, secondly, the Prime Minister will have to decide who will be the British Commissioner, and how Britain will vote on replacements for Mr Van Rompuy and for the President of the European Commission. Would it not be better if we did not prorogue until the day before the Queen’s Speech, so that it was available for us to summon the House if necessary, to hold the Government to account?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman bases his proposition on the idea that we will prorogue early, and we have no intention of proroguing unless and until all the business that requires to be transacted in this Session has been completed.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I recently held a public meeting in my constituency so that the Environment Agency could update residents and businesses on the floods that followed the tidal surge in December. The agency is now making final plans to be submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be a statement at that point?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised the subject with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House in the recent pre-recess Adjournment debate. DEFRA Ministers will be continuing to develop further investment in flood defences, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will update the House both on that and on the lessons learned exercises as soon as he can.

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

Will the Leader of the House issue a statement explaining why a Government official who used to work for an investment bank involved in the Pfizer-AstraZeneca deal is leading the takeover negotiations, and whether that lack of independence is in the public’s interest?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know of any civil servant who is in any sense compromised in relation to conflicts of interest. I do not think one can reasonably say that any relationship at any point in one’s past professional life necessarily constitutes a conflict years and years later. Civil servants are committed impartially to working on behalf of the Government. They have no conflicts of interest, or if they had any conflict of interest it would have to be declared.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Two years ago, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill, to ensure the compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. It was defeated by three votes—voted down largely by the politically correct brigade on the Labour Benches. As usual, I was ahead of my time, because the Leader of the House will appreciate that there is now widespread concern about the use among retailers of halal and kosher meat that is not labelled as such. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House to explain what the Government are doing to ensure that consumers can make an informed choice when they are making their purchases?

[Mr Lansley]

I do recall my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill and indeed he correctly anticipated what is clearly a continuing and emerging debate. I will, if I may, talk to our ministerial colleagues at DEFRA, but if he is able to—I am not sure quite how closely it will link—he may find an opportunity, on the first day on Report of the Consumer Rights Bill, to draw attention to these issues, because that Bill is very much about something that I am sure we all believe in, which is giving consumers not only rights, but the information on which they can base their purchasing decisions.

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

There is a sense of urgency about the need to strengthen the public interest test in the context of a further likely bid from Pfizer for AstraZeneca, and the country will expect the Government and the Opposition to work together on that issue. Will the Leader of the House commit to delaying Prorogation, so that we can make the time available to debate the actions required to deal with that situation and to legislate if necessary?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have heard my reply to the shadow Leader of the House. There is no formal bid from Pfizer for AstraZeneca. When the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talks about the public interest test, she is no doubt referring to the wider public interest test which the previous Government removed from legislation when they introduced the Enterprise Act 2002. I remember it well because I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill at the time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was very clear on Tuesday about not only his neutrality in relation to the two parties involved in this, but his open-mindedness about what steps the Government might take in relation to it.

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

Roadworks are badly affecting parts of my constituency and have been doing so for month after month, significantly affecting trade in nearby shops and businesses. May we have a debate on how local authorities can work with utility companies and developers to ensure that residents and businesses are consulted and fully informed about roadworks in advance?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point and he is right, as we try in many contexts to support our high streets and the traders and small businesses on them. One of the ways we can do that, which the Government have done, is to require greater notice of roadworks and for utility companies to work together in a more co-ordinated fashion, so that roads are not constantly dug up for one purpose, with someone else then coming along and digging them up for another. Giving notice and co-ordinating work is important, but I will ask my hon. Friends from the Department for Communities and Local Government to update him on anything else we are doing in this context to support high streets.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I was disappointed that the Leader of the House said nothing about the future programme for Westminster Hall in his statement, but he has had time to think about my question. Will he bring forward the Westminster Hall debates to 10 June? He has been eloquent about the need for this House to hold the Government to account. Here is an opportunity to show that he is right behind that.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will understand that the provisions for sittings in Westminster Hall are determined by Standing Orders. It is not in my gift to change Standing Orders; it is a matter for the House, but as she rightly asks the question, I will look at what provisions in Standing Orders permit us to bring debates forward in Westminster Hall more speedily after the opening of a new Session.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions the subject was raised of the deeply worrying lack of a pipeline of new antibiotics, owing to market failure. May we have a debate on how the UK, perhaps through the Department of Health and the Department for International Development, can take the lead in a global initiative to support the development of new antibiotics, similar to that which has been so successful in producing new malaria drugs?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister rightly stressed the importance of this, which he has discussed with the chief medical officer directly. The chief medical officer made an important report on the subject, in addition to her annual report. Last year we published the UK’s five-year anti-microbial resistance plan. That is world-leading, but it would be better if we were able to work with others. The World Health Organisation’s report gives us the basis on which to work with others at stimulating the necessary research to develop new antibiotics. If we can make sure that we use antibiotics more sensibly in the meantime, that will prolong far into the future the effective use of the existing supply of antibiotics, the stocks available and the kinds of antibiotics available at present.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Last Thursday in a debate on freedom of conscience and religion, a number of Members, including me, raised the issue of the abduction of the schoolgirls in northern Nigeria. We have had no opportunity to discuss this with a Minister, and the Foreign Secretary is not the only Minister in the Foreign Office. Bearing in mind that Prorogation approaches, may we please have a statement in the House on this issue so that we can ask questions of the Government and obtain some answers?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from my previous answer that I am not at all unsympathetic, but I want to make sure that we look carefully with my colleagues to see when and how we can give the House the best opportunity to consider these issues.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), may I add my voice to the calls for a debate on the findings of the World Health Organisation’s report on the global issue of antibiotic resistance? It concluded that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone in any country.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right, and I know of his interest in the matter. This relates to our use of antibiotics not only in human health, but in animal health and how they interact. It is very important to get both right. He will understand from my previous answer that I hope we will take an international lead in trying to achieve a greater effect against anti-microbial resistance in future.

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

The Leader of the House has been clear that the better care fund will continue, so will he investigate why Whitehall sources are briefing the media that the fund is now at risk? What is the status of the Cabinet Office report that has been extensively quoted in the press? Will he place a copy of the report in the Library and be clear that it is not a statement of Government policy, because it is very worrying for councils across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that I stated the position very clearly, and it is certainly not my intention to start speculating on who is talking to whom and whether or not they are talking to the press. That is not the responsibility of Ministers, and neither is talking about purported or actual leaks to the press.

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

My constituent Bill Baugh recently spoke to me about his involvement in No. 7 Squadron, which was formed at Farnborough airfield on 1 May 1914 and last week celebrated its centenary. As we approach the centenary of the first world war, may we have a debate on how we can share our constituents’ memories and stories about their involvement in both world wars, paying tribute to their service and sacrifice?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate, as I have said in previous business questions, that I hope Members will have a further opportunity to share their constituents’ views on commemorating the great war before the House rises for the summer recess. Of course, there will be an opportunity in the coming years, not least from my constituency’s point of view, to commemorate the establishment of the Royal Flying Corps and its translation into the RAF at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford.

[Mr Speaker]

Last, but never forgotten, Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I support 100% the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). My constituents will be horrified to read reports in today’s newspapers that major high street supermarkets are selling halal and kosher meat without it being labelled as such. Although I recognise that certain faith groups require halal or kosher meat, surely it is perfectly reasonable to expect to know what we are buying. If the Consumer Rights Bill is the right vehicle to address the problem, can we look forward to a Government amendment to ensure that if the meat we buy is halal or kosher, it is labelled as such?

[Mr Lansley]

The point my hon. Friend makes is not unreasonable, in relation to the desirability of consumers knowing what they are buying, and it is the responsibility of producers and retailers to make that happen. I am not sure whether it would be in scope to debate that next Tuesday, and I am afraid that I cannot give him any comfort that the Government plan to table such an amendment. I hope that it will generally be the case that where consumers have an expectation, it should be met by producers and retailers; it should not have to be the subject of Government legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friends recognise that legislation is not the answer to all problems.

House of Commons Business

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move motion 3—Petitions—

That this House supports the establishment, at the start of the next Parliament, of a collaborative e-petitions system, which enables members of the public to petition the House of Commons and press for action from Government; and calls on the Procedure Committee to work with the Government and other interested parties on the development of detailed proposals.

[Mr Speaker]

With this, we shall discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to motion 3, line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add

‘believes that the House of Commons should have its own e-petitions website, administered and controlled by this House and separate from that of the Government, though for cost saving purposes sharing the existing Government platform, that any hon. Member should be able to propose an e-petition for debate, regardless of the number of signatures the e-petition has obtained, that the Backbench Business Committee should allocate time on Mondays in Westminster Hall for debates arising from e-petitions directed to the House of Commons, but that any debate on a petition directed to Government should take place in Government time, that members of the public should be provided at the gateway to the websites with full information about how to ensure a petition is in order and to which institution their petition should most appropriately be directed, and that the House’s e-petitions websites should make it clear that the public may choose instead to contact their local hon. Member about an issue directly; and invites the Procedure Committee, consulting as appropriate with the Government, the Backbench Business Committee and any other interested parties, to develop a system meeting these objectives and to return to the House with proposals which may be implemented from the start of the next Parliament.’.

Motion 4—Parliamentary Privilege—

That, in light of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 226 and 227 of the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 100, this House resolves that legislation creating individual rights which could impinge on the activities of the House should in future contain express provision to this effect.

Motion 5—Programming—

That this House approves the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its Sixth Report of 2013-14, Programming: proposal for a trial of new arrangements for the tabling of amendments to bills at report stage, HC 1220, that a trial should take place for the course of the 2014-15 Session of a three day deadline for the tabling of amendments and new clauses/schedules at report stage of all programmed bills.

Motion 6—Calling of Amendments at the end of Debate (Amendments to Standing Orders)—

That Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at the end of debate) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order made:

‘Amendments to address in answer to the Queen’s Speech

(1) In respect of a motion for an address in answer to Her Majesty’s Speech, the Speaker may select up to four amendments of which notice has been given.

(2) No amendment may be selected before the penultimate day of the debate on such a motion.

(3) If, on the last day on which such a motion is debated in the House, an amendment to it proposed by the Leader of the Opposition shall have been disposed of at or after the expiration of the time for opposed business, any further amendments selected by the Speaker may thereupon be moved, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.’.

[Mr Lansley]

We move on to happier subjects. I will speak first to the motion on e-petitions. I will also address the other motions in my name, on parliamentary privilege and on Standing Order No. 33, and I will seek to move them formally at the end of the debate. I will also address the motion relating to programming, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and is supported by the Government.

Hon. Members may recall that, following the work of both the Procedure Committee and the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, I have previously undertaken to bring forward proposals for an improved e-petitions system. I want to build on the successful features of the current system, which has seen more than 10 million individuals sign one or more of the 27,500 e-petitions that have been submitted, 145 of which have reached 10,000 signatures, leading to a formal response from the Government. Of those, 29 petitions have reached 100,000 signatures and become eligible to be considered for debate, 25 of which have been debated.

The system provides a straightforward means by which people can submit a petition to raise an issue and press for action. As we have seen in debates such as those on Hillsborough, the badger cull, Sophie’s choice and the ban on female genital mutilation, petitions can be and are debated in Parliament. However, the system by which they are submitted is not approved or in any way owned by Parliament, and that is what I want to change. I want Parliament to share in the ownership of a modern e-petitions system that allows people to petition their Parliament, engage their elected representatives and, where appropriate, get a response from their Government.

I have already held constructive discussions with a number of interested parties throughout the House on the principles of a new system, but a lot of stakeholders are involved and there is a lot of detail to be worked out. I am therefore not initially coming to the House with a fully worked up blueprint for approval. I want to work with others on some ideas that will produce the best result for petitioners, who are our constituents. This is a therefore a paving motion, which will allow the House to agree on the principle that a new system should be jointly owned and run by the Government and the House of Commons.

To develop the detail of the new system with the House, the Government need a partner with which to work. We therefore propose that the Procedure Committee acts on behalf of the House in helping to shape the proposals. There will, no doubt, be other interested parties in the House and outside who will want to contribute, and that is entirely welcome.

I wish to refer briefly to amendment (a) to the e-petitions motion, tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I confess that I am disappointed that he has felt the need to table an amendment that is largely about the detail of the new system, not least because those are exactly the sorts of discussions that I hope we can have as we develop it. I do not disagree with all the elements that he suggests, but I am confused by an amendment that rejects the notion of a collaborative system yet goes on to envisage the sharing of the existing Government platform. The amendment is internally inconsistent and, I would argue, flawed in principle as a consequence. I cannot, in any case, imagine what the public would make of our establishing two competing and overlapping e-petition systems, which would be the effect of the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman is usually, and quite volubly, in the business of calling for the Executive to work in partnership with Parliament on legislation, on constitutional principles and on much else beyond. That is exactly what I am offering on e-petitions. It would be uncharacteristic of him to turn down such an offer, so I hope that he might not move his amendment.

I hope that a new system can provide better service and support for petitioners. It would provide more flexibility for the House to consider e-petitions in a variety of ways and an enhanced capacity for the House to ensure that the Government respond to those petitions in a significant and adequate manner.

The use of the platform already developed by the Government Digital Service will minimise the costs of the new system. Any additional staff costs will depend largely on the level and nature of the support provided to petitioners, and it may be that it can best be provided by the House’s outreach and information service. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that in the medium-term financial plan the House of Commons Commission has envisaged the provision of some modest support of that kind for a new e-petitions service.

I do not seek to hide the scale of the system. Just under 10,000 petitions are submitted each year—the number settled down after an initial burst in 2011 to about 20 per day, which is a lot of petitions. The moderating, monitoring and sifting of those petitions is a considerable task, but the rules relating to them can make it a manageable, and I think a fair one. Whether we have a petitions committee to govern that process is a matter for discussion. I confess that I am in favour of some form of petitions committee to act on behalf of the House, to develop engagement with the public on petitions, and in the longer term to liaise with Government on e-petitions and the system. For the avoidance of doubt, this motion and any proposals we have do not impinge at all on the existing paper petitions system. That is a matter for the House, and in particular the Procedure Committee.

The existing Government system will be taken down when Parliament is dissolved at the end of March next year. To ensure that a new system, based on the principles that I hope we can endorse today, is up and running from the start of the new Parliament, we must have reached agreement on the details of that new system by the end of this year, when I hope the House will be able to debate and decide on our joint proposals. With that in mind, I ask the House to approve the motion to allow the work we have started to continue, in close consultation with the Procedure Committee, as proposed.

The Government are happy to support the proposal from the Procedure Committee in the motion on programming, which I hope will benefit the whole House. As hon. Members know, the Government have already addressed concerns expressed about Report stage by providing more time where necessary, with the result that fewer groups of amendments are now left undebated than in the last Parliament. In this Session alone, no fewer than 11 Bills have benefited from more than one day on Report. I remind the House that there were only 10 such Bills in the whole of the previous Parliament.

By extending the deadline for the submission of amendments on Report from two to three days, the Government will be able to take full account of the number of amendments selected and grouped before tabling the supplementary programme motion. That will allow us better to match the available time to the weight and nature of amendments tabled. The deadline will rightly still be subject to the discretion of Mr Speaker. I emphasise that the Government will continue to seek to table amendments one week in advance of Report.

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

On the supplementary programme motions, I have had to wrestle with getting the amount of time for each group of amendments correct when drafting programme motions. Does my right hon. Friend propose that in each case the Government will use knives to allocate time for each group of amendments, or will they try to balance that—perhaps in conversation with the House—with what they think is the demand? In some cases, it may be better just to let the debate fall in the usual way. I am not sure from the motion what is being proposed.

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will recall from his experience of these matters, we sometimes believe it necessary to introduce what are known colloquially as “knives” into the programme motion to specify when discussion on certain groups of new clauses or amendments is to be concluded. However, we discuss that with the usual channels, and we try to ensure that the House gets the opportunity to debate all significant groups of amendments. The process of deciding whether we should do that or—as we sometimes rightly allow—whether to allow the debate on the amendments to proceed naturally, as it were, is not changed by the motion.

In effect, the motion creates during its trial period an agreement across the House that amendments on Report should be tabled three rather than two days earlier. The benefit of that is that we are more likely to get the programme motion right and not find, as has happened in the past as my hon. Friend will recall, that Opposition or Back-Bench amendments are tabled on Report at quite a late stage and at a time when it is very difficult—not to put too fine a point on it—to incorporate them successfully into a programme motion that understands where the weight of the debate will be. That is what this motion is principally about. A trial period in the next Session would enable us to see whether the proposal turns out to benefit Back Benchers and whether there are any unforeseen disadvantages. I am pleased that the Procedure Committee has secured the support of the Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for the trial period, and has committed to reviewing its operation towards the end of the next Session. If judged successful, the Government will support a permanent change.

Let me clarify that we start from a shared understanding that we use the term parliamentary privilege to describe a fundamental constitutional principle that guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament and allows us in this House to work on behalf of our constituents without the threat of interference from the courts. The motion on parliamentary privilege arises from the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was established to consider the Government’s White Paper on that subject published in 2012. I place on record my thanks for the diligent work of the Committee on that complex issue, and I stress that, as set out in the Government’s formal response, we agree with the Committee in its central conclusion that there is no strong case for comprehensive codification. None the less, there are steps that the House can take—I stress that the operation of parliamentary privilege is a matter for the House rather than Government—to provide greater clarity.

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

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement of the work of the Committee on which I served. Will he take this opportunity to make clear that we enjoy parliamentary privilege not as a privilege but as an obligation and duty? It is a freedom we hold on behalf of our constituents; it is a protection for our constituents that their elected representatives can enjoy limited immunity in respect only of what we do in this House, so that we can act in their interests without fear or favour. It does not protect us from any aspect of criminal law should we commit any ordinary criminal offence, which is how it should be.

[Mr Lansley]

I am hoping to make absolutely clear that this motion is in no sense about the law not applying equally to us as it would to any other member of the public. It is about what happens in this House and its proceedings, which require to be protected. Parliamentary privilege may have originated centuries ago, but it must always remain true. It may take a different character in terms of judicial activism, rather than Executive action, but none the less on behalf of our constituents we require what we do here to be done without fear or favour, and without risk of impeachment or prejudice from external parties. As my hon. Friend says, it is important for that privilege to be maintained for the benefit of our constituents.

The motion before the House is a means by which I hope we can provide the clarity necessary for the effective operation of parliamentary privilege. An equivalent motion was agreed by the House of Lords on 20 March this year, after a full debate. In essence, it calls for clarity in the application of any particular legislation to Parliament. The need for further clarification on that point arises because there is some legal uncertainty as to the consequences of a decision of the courts in the Graham-Campbell case of 1935, which held that the protection afforded to this House by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege was wide. The scope of parliamentary privilege has been revisited by the courts and commentators in more recent times—notably by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Chaytor case. However, the Graham-Campbell case has not been expressly overruled, which has sometimes led to uncertainty over what needs to be said in an Act intended to apply to Parliament. The boundaries of parliamentary privilege will in practice be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis, so it is helpful to them if legislation makes clear Parliament’s intent when legislating in areas that might encroach on those boundaries. That is why this motion provides for explicit provision on that point in cases of doubt.

In practice, that will require discussions between parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses on whether relevant provisions in Bills should apply to the activities of the two Houses, and for there to be express provision in the Bill where necessary. That is a sensible and pragmatic move towards providing greater clarity on a relatively obscure but important issue. As a matter of principle, I am sure we all agree that the law of the land should apply equally to Parliament, subject where appropriate to the protections of parliamentary privilege. I hope the House will agree to the motion so as to provide for that consistency across the two Houses.

[Mr Harper]

Of the two recommendations in the report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the second was for the Government to take steps to ensure that Departments complied with the official guidance, issued by the Treasury Solicitor, to consult with the House authorities on legislation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will do that in every case? The report said that it happened in some cases, but not in every case.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. It was not an invariable practice. A moment ago I spoke about the necessity for discussions between parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses, and I hope that those discussions will enable us to meet the recommendations of the Joint Committee. That is important.

What has, in part, led to the necessity of the motion is that different Bills have taken different approaches, sometimes seeing it as necessary to disapply parliamentary privilege and in other cases seeking to make it clear in legislation that parliamentary privilege applies. Our general proposition is that it is not required to say that parliamentary privilege applies—it does apply. However, we need to make it clear where the provisions of a Bill intend to have an effect on Parliament. In particular, we need to identify and specify where they may encroach on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, so that the courts have an unambiguous legislative provision that sets out to what extent Parliament has determined that the law, in that respect, applies to it.

[Mr Jenkin]

It is important to emphasise that parliamentary privilege rests solely on an understanding between the courts and Parliament, albeit that that rests on article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is implicit that the Bill of Rights overrides every other Act of Parliament. All we are saying in the motion, for the avoidance of doubt, is that that is the case unless an Act of Parliament specifically says otherwise. In the absence of any provision in any Act of Parliament, article 9 applies and the courts, who do not wish to interfere in the proceedings of Parliament, will respect that.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and he expresses that very helpfully. That is precisely what we are looking for. We do not suggest that it is not the responsibility of the courts to determine to what extent legislation applies, but that Parliament, through these legislative provisions and the discussions that will lead to them, should give the courts a clear expression of where in legislation that boundary applies, and legislation should apply, to Parliament in any particular instance. It must be in the best interests of this House, Parliament and the courts for us to be clear about what we intend to achieve in legislation. That is principally what we are trying to do.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. The resolution does not need to be followed by any legislation. It is implicit that article 9 applies—end of story. The only time legislation might impinge on article 9, and the only time we are saying that it could possibly impinge on article 9, is if Parliament expresses that explicitly in a subsequent Act of Parliament. However, we do not anticipate doing that, so article 9 applies.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The motion is not about giving rise to legislation. It is about this House sharing directly, in the same terms as the House of Lords, an expression about how we should frame legislation in future to make clear the relationship between this House, and the privilege applying to this House, and legislation, particularly in circumstances in which legislation is intended to apply to this House and its activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to agree with that.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I want to be clear that the Leader of the House is endorsing paragraphs 226 and 227 of the report in terms, because they are quite explicit. They set out the position. On the one hand, the objective is simple; on the other, it is quite complex. It is important, for the purposes of this debate, that the words of our conclusions on these matters are explicitly set out and not just referred to as paragraphs 226 and 227.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I am setting out to secure the agreement of the House on the motion before us. What we intend should be in the motion before us, and not what is beyond or additional to it. We intend to achieve just that.

[Mr Cash]

Would it be convenient if the words themselves were read out, so that we can be certain that everybody understands them? That is really what I am getting at.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is free to make his own contribution to the debate. For my part, I hope I have explained what we intend to achieve through the motion. Colleagues will have had the opportunity to look at the debate in the House of Lords, and I hope that exactly the same was clear from the nature of that debate. The purpose is to ensure that we have, in both Houses, an understanding that we should not have mutually conflicting approaches to legislation. We should approach legislation in a consistent fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) told us, we should have a way of recognising the application of parliamentary privilege to the proceedings of this House. We should also ensure that, in so far as we intend legislation to apply to this House and where it may have an impact on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, we put express provisions in the legislation to show, for Parliament’s purposes, what we believe the nature of those provisions and their application should be. That is what we are setting out to do.

On proposed new Standing Order No. 33, Members may recall, from the debate on the motion for an address in answer to the Queen’s Speech last May, that the current Standing Order does not provide absolute clarity on the number of amendments that may be selected on the final day of the debate. To be clear, a revised Standing Order is not an attempt to prevent you, Mr Speaker, from selecting an amendment, as you did on that occasion. It would not prevent you from doing that. As you will recall, you selected an amendment signed by Back Benchers on the omission from the Gracious Speech of an EU referendum Bill. That was, in fact, the second amendment selected, in line with normal practice. The third amendment selected, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, was the one beyond normal practice that would not, under previous practice, have been allowed.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall that he put down a motion on the Order Paper last autumn to restrict Mr Speaker’s discretion to accepting only three amendments. I am glad, as the person who blocked that original motion, that he has had second thoughts and is now going to allow Mr Speaker to select up to four amendments. Can my right hon. Friend explain why he feels we need to inhibit Mr Speaker exercising his discretion in this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend asks me to complete my speech, which, happily, is what I intend to do.

The interpretation of the Standing Order that allowed the selection of the third amendment on that final day leaves open the possibility of an unlimited number of amendments for separate debate. That introduces both an unwelcome element of uncertainty, in particular if Members were to table several amendments regretting the exclusion of their favourite Bill from the Queen’s Speech. I am not sure that Members or the Chair would want such a rich choice; nor do I think it was the intention of the Standing Order, when it was originally drafted, to permit votes.

What I am seeking, for the benefit of the House, is greater certainty. Members will want to know the maximum number of amendments that may be selected in order to judge whether to table one themselves. It is a matter of degree as to whether the total number of amendments selected should be limited to three or four. Do we want to spend more time debating or voting? The question in my mind originally was: what is the purpose of amendments, principally when the debate on the motion for an address is concerned? It is, essentially, an opportunity for competing views on the legislative programme as a whole to be debated. Therefore, my original preference is for what we had thought was the status quo—that is, three amendments under the Standing Order—but I am congenitally relaxed about the number being four.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Leader of the House congenitally relaxing in the Chamber. Looking back at the record, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is only since the second world war that we decided to choose so few amendments to the Queen’s Speech. It was, in fact, a regular occurrence previously to see six or eight amendments—or even 13 in 1904. Why has he picked on four for today’s motion?

[Mr Lansley]

I picked on four because that was the number recommended by the Procedure Committee as its preferred figure—and I think that is right, actually. It seems to me that going further would tip the balance too far. I take the shadow Leader of the House’s point about what might have happened in the further reaches of the last century, but for nearly 40 years we operated on the basis of having no more than three amendments. Technically, and strictly, the Standing Order was not unambiguous. As it turned out, it had been interpreted previously as meaning three amendments, but it was capable of being interpreted as meaning more, or any number. In my view, it is not the purpose of Standing Orders to be ambiguous; their purpose is to be clear. The Procedure Committee took the view in its original proposal that four was appropriate. I was not of that view, but I am content to support it: there is no point in having a Procedure Committee and then not listening to it; we listened very carefully.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

While the Leader of the House is in listening mode to Select Committee Chairs, I should advertise the fact that today the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee published our report on fixed-term Parliaments. This is the first time that we know we are in the last year of a Parliament—from one end to the other. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, therefore, whether this is an appropriate time to use the House for purposes other than passing Government legislation? Of course that needs to happen, but we could have more private Member’s debates, more Adjournment debates, more consideration of policy and, dare I say it, more amendments to the Queen’s Speech and on important policy issues—ahead of the public taking a decision in 363 days’ time.

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, I have had an opportunity to read the report of the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee. As his Committee was sitting earlier this morning, he was not in his place for business questions, when I took an opportunity to refer to the report. His Committee pointed out that the certainty surrounding a fixed-term Parliament provides greater opportunity for the planning of legislation, with a greater understanding of how much legislative time will be available. When he hears the Queen’s Speech early next month, he will see that a substantial legislative programme is intended for the full Session. That will not prevent us from meeting our obligations under Standing Orders for Back-Bench debates, Opposition time and other requirements. Indeed, in this Session, we have exceeded them, so we are already providing time for precisely the things that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Mr Chope]

Let me draw out my right hon. Friend further on whether he thinks it is a good idea that Back Benchers should be able collectively to table amendments in the Queen’s Speech debates. It obviously struck a chord with the people when that happened—on the issue of the EU referendum—during the last Queen’s Speech debates. Were there no coalition after the next election and three Opposition parties with reasonable representation, Mr Speaker might feel that his discretion had to be exercised in favour of those Opposition parties. It is possible that, even with four amendments, the opportunity for Back Benchers to put forward amendments in the hope of their being selected by Mr Speaker would be excluded. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he thinks it is important that Back Benchers have such an opportunity? If, after the next election, there were more official Opposition parties, would he recommend returning to the issue to allow for more than four amendments?

[Mr Lansley]

I would say two things about that. First, it is open to the House to reconsider these issues in the future. The original drafting of Standing Order No. 33 was partly a product of the political and party composition of the House in the 1970s. One could consider circumstances in which the House might think it appropriate to expand the opportunities in future for parties, were there a multiplicity of them, to express their collective view on the legislative programme as a whole through amendments.

That brings me to my second point. At the outset of this part of the debate, I want to emphasise that the issue did not really arise in relation to the Back-Bench amendment last year, because it was selectable and selected on the basis of the previous interpretation of the Standing Orders. That was not the issue—the issue was the additional Plaid Cymru amendment. However, were we to go down the path of thinking that on each motion for an address, it would be appropriate to debate the inclusion or exclusion of individual Bills, that would posit the question whether the purpose of the motion for an address is something other than an expression about the legislative programme as a whole. Amendments designed for that purpose should relate to the whole legislative programme rather than to individual Bills.

I have expressed my view on Standing Order No. 33, and I hope that the House will support the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in that respect. There are a number of motions before us, and I hope the House will support the making of these changes, which I believe will be positive. Notwithstanding the fact that we will have a good debate about them, they were intended to be brought forward in a consensual spirit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is a very powerful person in the House, but she does not yet have the ability to respond to a debate and to accept or not accept the proposals in my amendment. I shall listen carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s response. When he accepts most—not all—of the points in the amendment, as he no doubt will, I am sure we will be able to reach an accommodation. Somebody has to stand up and say that the House of Commons is a separate institution. The Government cannot just walk in here and set up a petition system on our behalf when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) says, we have some excellent and expert people, who do not need to understand the software and the hardware to be in control of a petitioning system. We need to ensure that all those things are in place before we say that it sounds like a great idea to get together and run one petitioning system on behalf of two separate, distinct and independent bodies that are elements of our democracy.

Let me move on to the particulars of my amendment. First, on the subject of Parliament’s having its own site, let me repeat that I am happy for the technology to be shared if it means we can save a little money and can get on with what we are meant to do in Parliament. I would rather that than continuing this move towards Parliament as a theme park, where the sittings of the House get in the way of tourist trips and movies being filmed—the Chamber could have been hired out this afternoon to some Hollywood film company. If we can make a little bit of money by sharing the Government’s platform and technology and can have less of the theme park stuff, we should all be happy about that and could have a little more self-respect about being a legislature.

My second point, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, concerns Members of this House and their role in the process. It should not be possible, willy-nilly, for a newsroom campaign to get a debate going in the House of Commons. “What are we going to do next week with our House of Commons, lads? Let’s get a few ideas, a few headlines, a cut-out in the newspaper and a debate next week—but on what?” As with the paper petition, the process should take place through a Member of Parliament: I have to stand up at the end of business and make a little speech to get a paper petition in the bag behind the Speaker’s Chair. I own that petition. That is the way to reinforce a representative democracy, rather than have stuff coming in, willy-nilly, from people who cannot sleep, have seen something on late-night TV at 3 am and have got up a petition to try to get a debate in the House of Commons.

I urge members of the public: “use your Member of Parliament. Convince your representative. Get them to put the subject that concerns you before the House.” To me, it is just as valid if one person contacts their Member of Parliament—I am thinking of the elderly lady who I met at the weekend who is trying to find an extra 40 quid so that she is not turfed out of her house because of the bedroom tax—as if somebody down in Wapping decides that we should have a debate on the increase in fuel duty, for example.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument seems in part to rest on the proposition that the petitions that have reached 100,000 signatures have somehow been generated in the newsroom of a newspaper. I have the list of 29 petitions that reached 100,000. I do not know of any, from what we know of them, that started in the newsroom of a newspaper. Which of those 29 does he think started in that way?

[Mr Allen]

I have not gone through the list. I am happy to go through it and write to the right hon. Gentleman if he does not have the researchers to enable him to do that job for himself. I am saying that if we introduce a system without the safeguards that I am proposing—a quasi-Government system based in the House of Commons—it will be very easy to generate petitions and put pressure on Parliament, and to put pressure on the Backbench Business Committee, and so on, to take time that would otherwise be used for purposes for which in the past we have all used our judgment.

My judgment, returning to the lady who has to find £40 out of a very low income to remain in the house where she was born 60 years ago, is that I want to get that subject raised on the Floor of the House because I think it is very important, but some other colleagues—I alluded to the all-party parliamentary groups—for one reason or another, or as a result of one influence or another, may want a specific debate. Let us all start equally. Let us hold sacrosanct the view that the House is a place where anyone may petition, anyone may convince their Member of Parliament and anyone, ultimately, time allowing, may get a debate. We should not compromise on that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate.

I pay tribute to members of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and the Procedure Committee for their service in considering a range of important parliamentary matters. In particular, I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who manages, with good grace and good humour, a wide range of views across that Select Committee, many of which are held with passion. He has skilfully steered the Government towards a sensible conclusion. Today, we thank him for his service.

The Leader of the House came slightly unstuck when explaining the motion on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I think that it is fair to say that he attempted to skip over paragraph 225 of the report. I note that the former Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), is in his place. Paragraph 225 said that the Government’s original thinking was, to put it charitably, unnecessary. There are less nice things that could be said about it. What the Joint Committee said in paragraphs 226 and 227 was that the solution, if it was not to be legislation, would be to have the debate that we are having today and the debate that was led by the noble Lord Brabazon in the other place.

I note that the Deputy Leader of the House was not in his place when the shadow Leader of the House was at the Dispatch Box. In case he has not been briefed on her speech, she pressed the Government on the so-called Hamilton law. The Joint Committee was absolutely clear that that should be repealed. We support that. I understand that there might be an opportunity to deal with that next Wednesday, time allowing, ironically. Will the Government confirm that they will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the Opposition, so that we can take that iniquitous piece of legislation off the statute book?

There was a range of excellent contributions on privilege. It is good to see the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) joining the ranks of parliamentary experts on the Back Benches, if only temporarily. He explained better than most what privilege is. He was right that we should all do more to explain to the public and to those who watch our proceedings what privilege is, rather than rewriting it in a more modern fashion.

Speaking of a modern fashion, I turn to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I am sorry that he is temporarily not in his place. He has been described previously as a Victorian figure. It turns out that the observers who dubbed him that were out by two royal dynasties at least. He has been a driving force in the Procedure Committee.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset made some valid points about privilege, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), another survivor of the Procedure Committee, who provided us with a good run through the history of the links between petitioning and privilege. He made an incredibly interesting point about privilege and e-petitions. Will the Deputy Leader of the House answer the following straightforward question? Privilege obviously extends to e-petitions that have been considered by the Backbench Business Committee or debated in Westminster Hall. However, if the Parliament website hosts an e-petition that has not yet reached 100,000 e-signatures, do the Government believe that by hosting it, Parliament has extended privilege to the e-petition? If the Deputy Leader of the House does not have the answer to that important question to hand and is yet to be inspired, it would be helpful if he wrote to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and me, and placed the answer in the Library.

On Standing Order No. 33, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) queried the Opposition’s commitment to blocking the gagging attempt by the Government. Obviously, Hansard does not record who shouts, “Object!”, but my recollection is that one Member on each side of the House shouted in objection. I draw his attention to the names that appeared after that of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on the counter-proposal. They included the names of the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, the shadow Leader of the House and all the Labour members of the Procedure Committee, including me. There is no doubt that we are not Johnny or Jane-come-latelies. We were clear from the start that this was an attempt by the Government to gag parliamentary democracy and speech. We welcome the Government’s reflection on the mood of Parliament.

It was right for Members to highlight the fact that Standing Order No. 33 assumes that the political make-up is that of a two-major-party system. We cannot predict what the future holds, but that means that it does not reflect the reality of this Parliament. We have, therefore, been clear that we do not support it.

On programming, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean acknowledged that he took the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 through at “a pace”. I can only assume that he was thinking of the pace of Usain Bolt. I want to remind him gently of how little time was spent on Lords amendments. When the Government came back from the House of Lords with the proposal to create two seats for the Isle of Wight, but not to create two seats for Anglesey, less than an hour of debate was provided by the Government for the contributions from the two Front Benches and the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). Perhaps, on reflection, that was not the finest hour of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean in upholding parliamentary democracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is right that legislation is the sole responsibility of Parliament. I praise her for being the main driver of the programming inquiry. She showed tenacity and vigour in hounding the Government to make the process fairer. The report is testimony to her hard work.

Finally, on e-petitions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean argued for a single system to ensure that Ministers are held to account. He said, rightly, that we should not create further confusion for the public. The Procedure Committee drew attention to the concern that the e-petitions system is misleading because it refers to an e-petition as an easy way to influence Government. I am not sure that many Members of Parliament think that being in Parliament is an easy way to influence Government. We therefore believe that further work needs to be done to ensure that the public understand.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) estimates that 10 million people have signed petitions. That is an impressive number, but I wonder whether, as with some popular television shows, the number of individuals who have taken part is not quite the headline figure. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House corrects me and says that the figure refers to 10 million individual people and not the same people signing several petitions.

[Mr Lansley]

The figure is 11.8 million.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am happy to be corrected. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire made an important point about gathering evidence from those people. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will say in his response whether the Government are considering contacting those who have previously e-petitioned them to ask for their feedback on the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made some interesting points, to which I am sure the Procedure Committee will give due consideration. However, the amendment is premature, so I urge him not to press it today and to make a written and perhaps oral submission to the Committee in the near future.

It has been a very good debate and we have had a great history lesson as well as considering some key issues about parliamentary democracy. The Opposition support the motions.

Standards

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House:

(1) approves the Eleventh Report from the Committee on Standards, HC 1225;

(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 29; and

(3) notes that Patrick Mercer has been disqualified as a Member of this House.

The conclusions of the Standards Committee in this case make for grim reading. It found that Patrick Mercer deliberately evaded the rules about the registration and declaration of interests, that he inflicted

“significant reputational damage on the House and its Members”

and that by engaging in paid advocacy he brought the House into disrepute.

I deeply regret that one of our number should have failed so badly to meet the standards that we and the public rightly expect. In the event, the six-month suspension recommended by the Committee does not have to be enforced as Mr Mercer decided to vacate his seat in advance of publication of the Committee’s report. None the less, it is important that the House has the opportunity to endorse the Committee’s report, to note Mr Mercer’s resignation, in effect, and to thank the commissioner and the Standards Committee for their work in dealing with this case.

I will leave it to the Chair of the Committee to set out the rationale for the findings in its report, but I want to make one point relating to the use of the sanctions available to the House. The Committee draws attention in paragraph 28 to the further consideration it will give as to how best to balance the need to impose penalties of the right severity for breaches of the code of conduct with the position of the Member’s constituents, who elect them and, by extension, might expect to dismiss them. It goes on to say in paragraph 29 that in reaching a judgment in this case, it was

“mindful of the precedent in the Lords”

where the equivalent Committee had recommended suspension of between four and six months in similar cases.

I am not convinced that the analogy with the Lords works in this context. The tariff system is calibrated differently in that House, largely because it does not have the power to expel peers. Any suspension does not have the same impact because peers do not have constituents who might suffer as a result of a lengthy suspension. Although I do not dismiss the value of precedent, I think we can accept that the two Houses might operate entirely independently from each other on matters of conduct.

In this House, there may be circumstances in which it is desirable to marry the interests of the electorate with the ethical standards of this House through the use of a recall mechanism. We might thus retain the responsibility of the House to police adherence to its own code of conduct but leave the ultimate decision on the sanction, when it is warranted, with the electorate. The Government have given a commitment to pursuing a recall Bill, which I hope will usefully add to the menu of powers already available to them.

On the Mercer case, Members will be aware that his offences related in part to the establishment of an all-party parliamentary group in a way that breached the rules: it was done in return for financial reward. There have been long-standing concerns about the potential for abuse of what are generally valuable additions to our parliamentary work. Following a report by the Speaker’s working group in 2012, the Standards Committee embarked on an inquiry into these groups, which was still under way when the case of Patrick Mercer was referred to the commissioner. The Committee reported to the House on all-party parliamentary groups in November 2013. The Committee’s report made many sensible recommendations designed to improve the transparency, accountability and distinctiveness of all-party parliamentary groups. The whole House can be grateful for this valuable work by the Standards Committee. As I have just announced, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider the Committee’s report and to approve the changes it recommended next Tuesday. I hope that these changes will make it even less likely that we will ever have to consider a report and a motion of the sort the House is being asked to consider today.

In recent weeks, lay members of the Standards Committee have emphasised that more should be done in this House to ensure that Members know and fully understand the requirements of the code and make the principles of public life integral to our thinking and actions. I agree with them and I look forward to working with the Committee to promote that.

It has been the practice of this House to endorse the findings of the Committee on Standards and I invite hon. Members to do so today.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 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 5 May—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 6 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Wales Bill. It may be helpful if I remind colleagues that the House will sit at 2.30 pm next Tuesday and that the moment of interruption will be at 10 o’clock.

Wednesday 7 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Water Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 8 May—A debate on motions relating to House of Commons business, including on petitions, programming, parliamentary privilege and amendments to Standing Orders, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 12 May will include:

Monday 12 May—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Day 1).

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

Thursday 8 May—A debate on the fourth report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the impact of the bedroom tax in Scotland: interim report, followed by a debate on the 10th report of the Environmental Audit Committee on sustainability in the UK overseas territories.

[Ms Eagle]

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

Mr Speaker, yesterday you announced that the Clerk of the House will be retiring after 42 years of distinguished service to this place. There will be an occasion in future to pay an appropriate tribute, but for now I just observe that his seminal opus “How Parliament Works” still remains the most borrowed book in the whole of the House of Commons Library. The warm applause he received from all sides of the House yesterday is a fitting tribute to the esteem in which he is held.

Given the languid nature of the Government’s legislative programme to date, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on managing to find at least some business for us to consider? Will he now confirm to the House what we all know: that next Thursday he will be at the Dispatch Box announcing an early Prorogation and admitting that they are a Government who have not only run out of ideas but out of steam?

I note that next Thursday we will debate a range of motions on House business, including on programming, privilege, e-petitions and Standing Orders. I also note that some of those motions are being rewritten at the last minute and even as we speak. Will the Leader of the House set out what he will be proposing? Will he tell us how he plans to structure the debates and, more important, whether there will be separate votes? After last year’s embarrassment of Tory Back Benchers moving to regret their own Queen’s Speech, will he confirm whether the Government are trying to avoid a repeat performance this year by attempting to limit the number of amendments that can be tabled, or are they frantically rewriting the motion even as we speak because they realised that they going were to lose the vote and have had to back off from this attempt to gag Parliament? What a spectacle: a Government who have to contemplate changing the Standing Orders to stop their own Back Benchers amending their own Queen’s Speech, and then have to abandon the attempt because they realised they would lose the vote.

On Monday, almost 80 Conservative Members were allowed to absent themselves or rebel on their Government’s flagship High Speed 2 Bill. Those conveniently absent included the Attorney-General, the Minister for Europe, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—and the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister has been taking lessons on collective responsibility from the Liberal Democrats?

Today is May day. Given that the Tories have farcically renamed themselves the workers party, will the Leader of the House tell me whether he or the Chief Whip plan to be on any May day marches this weekend to show solidarity with their comrades in South Cambridgeshire and North West Hampshire? May we have a debate, in Government time, on the increasing levels of insecurity in work, so they can explain exactly why it is that there are now more than 2 million zero-hours contracts in this country, and why underemployment is at record levels?

Yesterday the Government were forced to reveal the list of 16 firms that had been given priority access to the Royal Mail fire sale. We now know that Lazard—the same firm that had advised the Business Secretary on the price—bought nearly half the shares that were available to the priority bidders, and was able to make a profit of £8 million in a single week. The chairman of Lazard in the United Kingdom is a former Tory Member of Parliament. The Chancellor’s best man made a mint, and numerous Tory donors appear to have benefited from being allowed into this cosy old boys’ club. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills so that he can explain the cronyism that exists in the Government?

With just three weeks to go until the local and European elections, the race is hotting up. The Prime Minister, on the campaign trail in Essex, could not tell his Chelmsfords from his Colchesters—which proves that with this Prime Minister it is not “The Only Way is Essex” but more like “Made in Chelsea”. Meanwhile, in their bunker, the Liberal Democrats are eagerly awaiting the verdict of the electorate. The number of candidates they are putting up is significantly down, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) has described his own party as “largely pointless”, and the Deputy Prime Minister must be fondly reminiscing about the days when everyone thought he was the man who was going to change British politics. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently declared that the Cornish were now a national minority; I think it is about time that he also declared that the Liberal Democrats are now a national joke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement, and, in particular, for her warm words about the Clerk of the House. I hope to be able to announce before the summer recess an opportunity for us to pay tribute to the Clerk. I share the hon. Lady’s sense that we have in our present Clerk someone who has been not only exemplary in the fulfilling of his duties but inspirational in his attachment to the House of Commons and its responsibilities, and to the quality of democracy and accountability in this place. That was demonstrated amply in his letter to the Speaker, which was read to us yesterday.

I welcome the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), to his new position. We are very grateful to the former shadow deputy Leader, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and wish her well in her responsibilities for water and animal welfare. I have to say that the arrival of the new shadow Deputy Leader of the House has not yet produced any improvement in the quality of the jokes in the response to the business statement, but we look forward to that; it might happen. If nothing else, we know that we shall now have plenty of advice on procedure, which I am sure we shall all appreciate.

Curiously, the shadow Leader of the House began by asking me what I was going to announce next week. I shall announce next week what I am going to announce next week, but it will come as no surprise to the hon. Lady that I shall not be in a position to advise on the date of prorogation until the business that needs to be transacted during the current Session has been assured. And that is the point—we do have business. We have had a busy Session: I believe that we have introduced some 24 Bills, not including carry-overs, which is a substantial programme. There are four Bills whose progress we need to complete, and we are dealing with five that will be carried over into the next Session.

The hon. Lady asked about the structure of next Thursday’s business. Time does not permit me to describe all the motions that will need to be considered, but I propose that there should be a time-limited debate lasting some three hours and allowing consideration of a range of issues relating to House business. There will be separate votes on those issues at the end of the debate.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the content of Standing Order No. 33. We are simply trying to fulfil what I consider to be the responsibility of the Leader of the House, which is to ensure both that the will of the House can be met and that the Standing Orders are clear and unambiguous. The current position is that the Standing Order sets no limit to the number of amendments, although that was not the intention behind it. I think we can arrive at a solution—not least with the benefit of advice from the Procedure Committee—that will attract consensus throughout the House, which is always my aim.

The hon. Lady asked about the HS2 vote, which illustrated the benefit of business questions, not least because it gave Members an opportunity some weeks ago to ask for additional time, as I think the shadow Leader of the House did. Additional time was found to ensure that we had a very full debate on Monday of this week, and time on Tuesday to debate the future processes for scrutinising the HS2 Bill. There was a majority of more than 400 in favour of the Bill, which was a very satisfactory outcome.

As the shadow Leader of the House knows, the Prime Minister is a very busy man. His support for HS2 is not in doubt. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should not get too excited. I have taken the trouble to look at how often the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) voted in the 2005 Parliament, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequently Prime Minister. He voted on 12.7% of occasions. The Prime Minister in this Parliament has voted on 17.8% of occasions—a considerably improved performance. In fact, it is not only an improved voting performance but an improved performance as Prime Minister.

We have not had an opportunity to announce and discuss the future business of the House since 10 April, and I was struck by the fact that the shadow Leader of the House did not ask for a debate on the economy, on jobs, on the progress on inflation. [Interruption.] Oh—zero-hours contracts, I see. The Opposition are not really interested in how many jobs there are. Don’t worry, there will be an opportunity to discuss jobs, including that issue. My right hon. Friends and others at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills undertook a consultation on zero-hours contracts, so they are in a very good position to come to the House and advise on how we can achieve improvements in such contracts and end abuse. However, in doing so we will recognise that it also matters to people that there are more jobs, that they are in jobs. Since we last met, it has been announced that the number of private sector jobs has increased by 1.7 million overall; that inflation has gone down to 1.6%; that confidence as reported by business surveys is at a 10-year high; and that growth in this country is now the fastest among the leading economic nations.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his movement on Standing Order No. 33 and for providing significant time next week for business to be transacted relating to my Committee’s reports. I urge him, a reform-minded Leader of the House, to join the Procedure Committee in driving forward an e-petition system that is absolutely geared to the needs of the House of Commons, its Members and, of course, our constituents.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. I hope that next week’s debate will enable us to demonstrate that although we have a very successful system of e-petitions to Government, we do not have a mechanism by which members of the public can petition their Parliament. It is an essential and historic element of the work of this Parliament that it receive and consider petitions and grievances. Although the public have on occasion seen petitions to the Government website turn into debates in this House, strictly speaking the House has no ownership of the petition system itself. I hope we can, through that debate, initiate a process by which we can enable members of the public to feel that they are petitioning their Parliament and seeking its response, and action and response from Government at the same time.

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

One problem with the e-petition system was that it has not so far been debated by the House, so I welcome next week’s debate. If the Procedure Committee is to do the work on the details of bringing forward a system, will the Leader of the House confirm that we can all work together to have those proposals debated and voted on as soon as possible by the whole House, so that a system can be in place as soon as the new Parliament starts?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is right about that, and I want to work with the Procedure Committee and other stakeholders across the House to ensure that we have something that works for the House and for the public. When hon. Members work back from the simple fact that the petitions website will be taken down at Dissolution early next year and has to be with the new Parliament when it assembles—we hope to introduce it in its adapted and enhanced form—I hope they can see that we have to agree in principle what needs to be done by the summer recess.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May we have a debate on competitive tendering within the NHS, using as a case history ERS Medical, a private firm that cheated to win a contract for patient transport services in Essex? This morning, former members of the NHS ambulance trust turned up for work at ERS and were turned away. I would say that that is illegal—it is certainly immoral—and we should look at whether ERS Medical is up to any more of these cheating tricks to win contracts.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to comment directly on the issues relating to ERS, but I will ask my colleagues at the Department of Health whether they will be able to respond to him, not least if he wishes to provide any further information.

Of course, competitive tendering for patient transport services has been a part of the NHS for a long time; it is not something that has been recently introduced. What is new in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is an absolute statutory basis for competitive tendering to be undertaken on the basis of delivering for the best interests of patients, and that is very important.

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

As a result of changes to the minimum practice income guarantee and the quality and outcomes framework last year, five GP practices in my constituency are threatened with closure, and The Times reports on its front page today that Tower Hamlets is not alone in this. May we please have an urgent statement from the Department of Health on what assessments have been made of the impact of these changes on constituencies such as mine? Would the Leader of the House be so kind as to reinforce my request for an urgent meeting with the appropriate Minister at the Department of Health?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course convey that request and ask whether a Minister will be able to meet the hon. Gentleman. I know from my previous work at the Department of Health—he, too, will understand this—that the MPIG was established under the 2004 GP contract, which had many flaws, one of which was that although it was said at the time that the MPIG would disappear over time, no mechanism was put in place for that to happen. The new framework proposes that the MPIG will disappear over time, but there is a substantial seven-year transitional period for that to happen. I will of course ask my colleagues to amplify things to the hon. Gentleman in detail.

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

Will my right hon. Friend allow an early debate on rural broadband? On 1 January, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is introducing “digital by default” for all single farm payments, but 22% of my constituency will not have access to fast broadband so this really does require the most urgent attention from the Department.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will have heard our colleagues responding in Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on issues relating to rural broadband. Some 20,000 homes in rural areas are acquiring broadband each week. It can be difficult to provide broadband in some rural areas, but the Government have a clear focus on ensuring not only that we achieve the objectives we set out on broadband in total, but that we focus on the most difficult-to-reach areas, finding technological and financial solutions for those, too.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware that there cannot be a more deserved debate than one about the demise of the two deep coal mines in Thoresby and Kellingley, and that it should be held as soon as possible? There are three pits left in Britain, two of which are hanging on by their fingernails. As there is plenty of time to deal with the matter, will he arrange a debate so that we can discuss ways of saving those two collieries? Applications could be made for EU state aid. The Government could also find £70 million out of the £700 million that they took out of the miners pension scheme last February. Those are ways to save these pits, save the jobs and keep the coal mining industry afloat.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard, as I have, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) respond precisely to some of the questions that he has just put. I completely understand that he and other Members may well wish to have a debate on this. It would be appropriate for them to seek to apply for an Adjournment debate, or to go through the Backbench Business Committee. I cannot promise Government time for this matter—

[Mr Skinner]

It is about state aid.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman says that it is about state aid, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear that there is no mechanism by which the EU can provide state aid; that is not how it works. It is about whether this country is in a position to provide aid that would qualify as state aid and be accepted. He has heard my right hon. Friend respond directly to that point at this Dispatch Box.

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

The floods have at last receded in Somerset, and we are going back to normal. Can we please have time in this House to discuss the important lessons that we need to learn not just in the area of the Somerset levels but right across the United Kingdom where flooding has been a concern? We do not want another year like this one for any part of the United Kingdom. Unless the lessons are learned, we potentially face this problem time and again given the way in which the climate is changing.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and he is quite right. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that, by establishing the work of the new flooding Cabinet Committee, he is ensuring that there is strategic ministerial oversight of policy on flood recovery and long-term resilience, which is exactly the point that my hon. Friend makes. As those lessons are learned and exercises come together, Ministers who are overseeing the matter will, I am sure, take an opportunity to update the House as soon as possible.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

A month ago, the Business Secretary told me that links between donations to the Conservative party and profits made from the sale of Royal Mail shares were nothing to do with him. Now that we know there are links, may we have an urgent debate on propriety in politics? In a week in which my constituents have seen a Member resign over propriety issues, it is clear that these matters go right to the heart of belief in British politics.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong; there are no such links. I was involved in this area more than 20 years ago, and we made it absolutely clear that in the Conservative party, donations never buy influence over policy. I wish it were the same in the Labour party, but it is not. Last year, Len McCluskey gave the Labour party £1.2 million and said that the time had come to have a policy for rent controls. What did we get—a policy on rent controls.

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

May I ask for an early debate on financial travel support for parents who wish to send their youngsters to faith-based schools? Parents came to see me because they want to send their children to the Catholic school, St Augustine’s, in Billington. As they have to pass a non-faith-based school, they will get no support whatever for travel costs, and it will cost the parents hundreds of pounds. Financial discrimination is religious discrimination and that should not happen.

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in the Chamber representing his constituents as assiduously as he has always done. We look forward to his continuing to do so. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education to respond to him. It is important that, although there are significant financial constraints, we try to ensure that parents can in practice access the choice that we want them to.

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

In the light of the arrest and detention of a certain Gerry Adams in connection with the murder of Jean McConville, a mother of 10 who was abducted and murdered by the IRA, of which Gerry Adams was commander in Belfast in the ’70s, simply for going to the aid of a dying soldier, does the Leader of the House agree that this is an appropriate time for a debate on victims, so that they can be reassured that evidence will be followed up and that people will be brought to book no matter what their status or standing in society?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, understand that I am not in a position to comment on any ongoing police investigation. His point about victims is important and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear at the Dispatch Box recently in relation to the wider circumstances and questions about the on-the-run terrorists review, we should always make sure that the needs of justice are served and that victims can see that we are continuing to pursue the issues that relate to that.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On Monday, I sought to ask the Home Secretary about the cost of the MPs’ asylum and immigration hotline, but was unable to do so. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and give us that figure, and can we also talk about the proposal for a dedicated asylum hotline so that MPs and their staff are not tied up with comments and questions from people seeking explanations about their asylum applications and can focus on our constituents’ needs?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know, not least from the many occasions on which I have quite properly received representations from hon. Members, that it is important to Members of this House that they can advise and support their constituents on many issues arising from asylum and immigration and that they can do so effectively through their contact with the Home Office and its associated agencies. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration to respond directly to my hon. Friend on the subject of the cost of the asylum immigration hotline. If he is happy to do so, he might like to have a direct conversation about how we can best represent our constituents in a way that serves their interests.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find adequate time for discussion of the outstanding reports from the Standards Committee that await debate and of the report from its predecessor, the Committee on Standards and Privileges, on the proposed revision to the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members? That report was published in December 2012, yet we are still waiting for time for a debate in the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which allows me to say that I had hoped that we might have resolved those issues before now. We have not and I hope that we will soon. We and other stakeholders across the House need to establish consensus not only on that important issue but on how we might take forward the issues that the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee are considering as regards a more general revision of the code of conduct. I hope that in our conversations and my representations to his Committee we might be able to strengthen the work of the Standards Committee and give greater reassurance to the public and our constituents about the independence and robustness of the processes we have in place.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party group on self-build, custom-build and independent house building, may I remind the Leader of the House that next week’s business includes a debate on this important subject, to which the Government committed £150 million in the recent Budget? Hon. Members who wish to intervene in that debate should attend at the end of the day next Wednesday.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is quite right and, in self-build week, he has managed to obtain an opportunity for an Adjournment debate that will highlight the support we are giving and the potential there is for people to increase our housing supply in this country through self-build. We do not do very well in comparison with many other countries and he is an advocate of our doing much more. I encourage Members who have the opportunity to do so to support my hon. Friend in his debate on this important subject.

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

As we have been talking about petitions today, will the Leader of the House take account of the growing number of people from Huddersfield and Halifax who are signing a petition because they are deeply concerned about the possible closure of accident and emergency departments in those two towns? That is very important to them. May we have an urgent debate on what the hell is going on in A and E departments up and down our country?

[Mr Lansley]

I know the hon. Gentleman will be aware that what is going on is that we are continuing to deliver high standards of care in A and E departments in circumstances where there is a consistently rising number of people attending. We need to do two things. We need to make sure that people are cared for effectively in the community to minimise their requirement to use A and E, and we need to focus A and E on the task that it needs to do. But when people go to A and E, we need to make sure that they go to an emergency department that has the skills and the capability to deal with their case, and what is available at present varies dramatically between locations. We need to ensure that people with the most serious conditions get to the emergency departments with a full range of capabilities to deal with them.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Each year more than 324,000 tenants are evicted in response to complaints they must make about the condition of their homes, so it is no surprise that 12% of private tenants do not report any problem for fear of retaliatory eviction. May we have a debate about stopping bad landlords dodging repairs when evicted tenants complain to their local councils, and giving tenants the right to appeal a notice to quit if it is a response to a problem, particularly as more than 1.3 million private rented homes do not meet the Government’s decent homes standard?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that our colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, through their review of property, have identified the extent to which there is a deficiency in the quality of the housing stock in part of the private rented sector. We want to make sure that people have good access to housing and that the housing is of good quality. I will, if I may, talk to my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government about when we might have an early opportunity for them to respond further in relation to that.

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

Tomorrow I will be meeting veterans and beneficiaries of the Royal British Legion at the very well named 617 Squadron room at the new Penarth Pier pavilion in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming their work and find time for a debate on the importance of community covenants and strengthening community partnerships, such as this excellent work?

[Mr Lansley]

I would like to take the opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in our support for the community covenant and support for the communities who are backing up the military covenant in this way. It is important to recognise the sacrifice and the tremendous contribution that many people have made through their service in the armed services. I do not see an opportunity for a debate immediately, but there may be ere long further opportunities for us to highlight that in our own constituencies.

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

Two years ago, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I addressed the UK Trade & Industry Leicestershire chamber of commerce conference. In my speech I highlighted the need for business to look beyond the eurozone to emerging markets and our Commonwealth partners for export growth. Given that exports to India were up 20% last year and exports to China are now averaging £1 billion a year, may we have a debate on what steps the Government can take to help further UK business to export to new markets?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I applaud what he has done in Leicestershire to enable businesses to access the support and help of UKTI. Many Members will be aware that UKTI has significantly improved its offer to businesses, as was reflected recently in export week, but we know we have much more to do. If we can increase the proportion of businesses in this country, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, that are exporters, we can ensure that the recovery that we are seeing in the economy can be sustained for many years to come.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his kind words earlier, but I was disappointed by his response to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made about Royal Mail. Can I take it from his response that he does not think that the Government have any lessons to learn at all from the way that they handled the sale of Royal Mail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

In relation to the business of the House, the hon. Lady will be well aware that both the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the Public Accounts Committee are looking at the issue, and no doubt they will bring forward reports, which I know that the Government will want to consider carefully and respond to. The reason why I was perhaps more dismissive of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) than of the hon. Lady’s perfectly proper question is that the hon. Gentleman’s question was based on a false assertion. The Royal Mail privatisation was achieved successfully. I know from my involvement in past privatisations, as a civil servant way back in the 1980s, that it is very difficult to get the price right at the initial public offering. It is normal for the privatised company subsequently to sell at a higher price than the one at which it was offered. It is very important to establish the price at which it can be underwritten, and to engage substantial investors to ensure that the bulk of the sale can be made.

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

I am sure that the Leader of the House will welcome, as I did over the Easter recess, the news that Wolverhampton Wanderers have been promoted to the championship. I am a stoic Wolves fan, but I am not asking for a debate on that, as it might be guillotined. Perhaps more pertinently, the Black Country local enterprise partnership has outlined a vision for regeneration in the area, and I warmly endorse two aspects of that vision. One is around the Wolverhampton interchange, and the second is around cultural capital investment in the city centre. May we have a debate on how LEPs, and this one in particular, facilitate regeneration in areas such as Wolverhampton?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I wish Wolverhampton Wanderers well; Wolves have a great history, and it may be that their future is getting better all the time. I am sure that he and many supporters of the club will be very encouraged by that.

On my hon. Friend’s question about the Black Country LEP and many other LEPs, it is important to note that we are agreeing a whole range of city deals that are enabling locations across the country to identify what they believe will best assist in economic regeneration for the future. The same is true of applications to the regional growth fund. The LEP and the local authority are coming together, as my hon. Friend says, to define projects such as the interchange. That is very important, and it is important for them to make bids to the regional growth fund. There is £3 billion already committed to 430 schemes under that fund, and there is dramatic leveraging—something like a fivefold or sixfold leverage—of private sector investment as a consequence.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, Imperial Tobacco announced its intention to close the Horizon factory in Lenton, with the loss of more than 500 jobs, leaving many of my constituents and their families reeling. Can the Leader of the House confirm which Department or Minister is co-ordinating the Government’s response and the resourcing of joint work by the city council, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Futures, the LEP and other partners? When will a Minister report to Parliament on the practical support to be offered to those affected by the shock decision?

[Mr Lansley]

I can understand how the hon. Lady feels about the impact on her constituents. On those who will lose their jobs, ensuring that they can access new employment and, if necessary, retraining and the like is a responsibility for the Department for Work and Pensions. As for wider interests, and supporting the local enterprise partnership and local authorities in ensuring a broader economic development response, that is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I will ask both Departments to contact the hon. Lady about the steps that they are taking.

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

I listened carefully when the Leader of the House announced the business for next Thursday. Perhaps he could add some time to the debate on the procedures of the House for discussing the Backbench Business Committee. He, I and the Chairman of the Committee could then explain to the shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), that it was not the Prime Minister who scrapped debates ahead of European Councils; this House unanimously decided, as a result of the Wright Committee recommendations, to give that time to the Backbench Business Committee. We could also suggest that having a debate before every European Council would not be welcome.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, the House took an important and positive decision to give Back-Bench Members, through the Backbench Business Committee, the opportunity to assess the relative priority of debates. I am not sure of the view of shadow Leader of the House on the matter, but I hope that she might have a word with the shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), to make it clear that trying to revert to the past will actually undermine the independence of the Backbench Business Committee and of Members of this House.

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

There are 48,000 homes in the private rented sector in Liverpool. All those tenants had been heartened by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he said that he wants

“longer fixed-term, family-friendly tenancies that meet their needs.”

May we have an urgent statement about when the Government will honour that aspiration and support the proposals announced today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to scrap letting fees, end excessive rent rises and introduce long-term tenancies?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Lady is saying that she supports what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is doing to promote flexibility, quality and supply in the housing market, I am pleased. I suspect, however, that what she is saying is that we do not want to go beyond that to a rent control policy of the kind advocated by her leader. In that respect, she probably takes the same view as the shadow Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who said on “Channel 4 News” in January that

“rent controls are not going to work in practice”.

What the hon. Lady said was right then and it is right today.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

This morning, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the National Children’s Bureau published a report analysing the UK’s poor record on child mortality compared with the rest of Europe. Yesterday, the Department of Health’s children and young people’s health outcomes forum also acknowledged that the UK has a historically poor child mortality record. May we have an urgent debate to consider how we can ensure that the UK is the best place not only to end life, but to begin life?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will recall that, some two and a half or three years ago, I initiated work on how to improve health outcomes for children and young people, which led directly to the work of the children and young people’s health outcomes forum. It forms part of the NHS England mandate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has put in place and is a key part of Public Health England’s work. However, outcomes for children and young people depend on things far wider than what the health service does, such as being ready for school and avoiding periods when young people are not in education, employment or training. Such measures are critical, which is why the Government are focused on them.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House likes mangoes, but today marks the first day of the EU ban on the importation of Indian Alphonso mangos, a decision taken by Brussels without consultation with the House that will cost businesses in Leicester and beyond millions of pounds. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, with an action plan to get the ban reversed?

[Mr Speaker]

I have sampled the mango in question and can testify that it is extremely tasty.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker. Temporary restrictions are in place, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and are important to protecting home-grown salad crops—an important industry worth £320 million a year—from potential pests and diseases. India is a key trading partner, but we know that these temporary restrictions will impact only on a very small percentage of the successful business that we conduct with it. However, we are working with our Indian and European counterparts to resolve the issue.

As for the business of the House, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has secured a debate on the Adjournment at the close of business next Thursday that will allow him to raise his concerns with the House.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Now that we have five-year, fixed-term Parliaments, we are obviously in the longest general election campaign ever, and perhaps the business of the House should be changed to reflect that. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition is not going to ask the Prime Minister any questions on jobs, growth or the reduction in the deficit, so can we change Prime Minister’s questions so that the Leader of the Opposition can ask the Prime Minister three questions and then the Prime Minister can ask the Leader of the Opposition three questions? That way, we might have a proper examination of the fact that we have created 1.5 million new jobs, growth was up by 3% last year and the deficit has been halved.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but I fear that it is not one we will take up. When the Leader of the Opposition asks his six questions, often what he leaves out speaks volumes, and I think that will inform the public as he continues to be bereft of anything to say on Labour’s plans for the economy.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

We all rightly condemn the abduction of more than 200 girls from their school in Nigeria, so may we have an urgent debate on how Britain can help to ensure that they are returned to their rightful place, which is with their families and, more particularly, are in education?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will all have been horrified by what we have seen and by the continuing trauma that those girls and their families and friends must be experiencing. We will do everything we can to help. I will of course speak with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether they can advise Members on what more can be done.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to recognise, assist and support businesses that focus on energy efficiency, such as the Vaillant Group—Glow-worm, as it is better known locally—which has a base and factory in my constituency?

[Mr Lansley]

The Vaillant Group is very well known. We are doing a great deal to promote the important energy efficiency sector, which is already worth more than £18 billion and employs over 130,000 people in this country. It is economically important to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many others. Indeed, the installation of more efficient gas boilers, the green deal, the energy obligations and the product policy in building regulations are all promoting renewable heating technologies through the world-first renewable heat incentive.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I was delighted to learn a few minutes ago that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has secured an Adjournment debate on the mango ban, which is causing considerable concern for businesses in my part of Leicester as well. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to ensure that we can bring a delegation of businesses affected to the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of that debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always try to assist Members of the House in whatever way I can. I will certainly see whether Ministers would be willing to have such a meeting in that time frame.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

This coming week I will join a party led by the mayor of Rugby on a visit to the Menin Gate memorial to remember local people who lost their lives in the great war, reciprocating the visit made by Field Marshal John French, the Earl of Ypres, who unveiled Rugby’s memorial in 1922. Can our commemorations here in Parliament include a debate on the links between our constituencies and where our brave soldiers lost their lives?

[Mr Lansley]

As I told the House at the last business questions, I hope to be in a position to announce a further debate in which Members can talk about how their constituents are commemorating the events of 100 years ago, as I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents are doing. I was very proud to have an opportunity to visit a village in my constituency only last Friday where they are planning a publication that details each person who died in service during the first world war and tells their story, including where they fell and where they are commemorated.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Minister for Civil Society recently said that it was “okay” to lose some of the youth services that have been slashed due to Government cuts because—excuse me, Mr Speaker—they were “crap” in the first place. May we have a debate in Government time on the devastating cuts to services for young people, which will also give the Minister an opportunity to explain his disgraceful and derogatory remarks?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not remember reading those remarks and I do not know precisely the context in which my hon. Friend spoke. However, because I know him very well, I know that he is a devoted advocate of supporting civil society, charitable organisations and community groups in providing high-quality services, including to children and young people. I will alert him to what the hon. Lady has said and give him an opportunity to respond.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Northamptonshire is officially the most enterprising county in the country. May I share with the Leader of the House the good news from the latest economic review by Northamptonshire chamber of commerce for the first quarter of this year? It says that 78% of manufacturers in the county report increased export sales and that over 90% of manufacturing and service sector firms expect turnover and profitability to stay the same or to improve over the coming year. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about why counties such as Northamptonshire are leading this country out of the great recession?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know from personal experience of meeting business people in his constituency that those in Northamptonshire are indeed very enterprising—although I imagine that the title he claims will be hotly contested in this House. His question is apt, because this week we have seen evidence from the latest first-quarter GDP growth data that manufacturing is the fastest-growing sector of the economy. That is in marked contrast with what happened under the previous Labour Government, when manufacturing employment was cut by 1 million and there was a focus on financial services to the detriment of manufacturing.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Last month the Government were absolutely right to give the go-ahead to the new power station at Hinkley Point, at a cost to the consumer of £92.50 per megawatt. May we have a debate on consistency in Government subsidy, given that last week they announced that it would be unfair and insupportable to give a subsidy to onshore wind, which costs between £70 and £80 per megawatt?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman will recall from a response from the Prime Minister at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, the point about the build-out of onshore wind farms is that the Government set a target to increase onshore wind farms and renewables generation, and it is not necessary, in our view, to keep providing a subsidy to go beyond that. The point about nuclear is that it is a different form of generation. It is, as it were, the bedrock of security of supply, and it is important to ensure that it is there.

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

The tourism industry is absolutely essential to the south-west, yet operators in my constituency say that even now they are getting phone calls from people who are convinced we are still under water. May we have a statement before the bank holiday—I appreciate that that probably means the tourism Minister coming back here this afternoon—to tell the world that the floods have gone; that the railways are mended; that the food, drink, countryside and welcome are as great as ever; and that Somerset and the west country are very much open for business?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and I hope that people will listen to it. He is absolutely right. The railway line has reopened and the waters have receded. People have gone to enormous trouble to rebuild and recover, and Somerset and the west country are open for business. I was very pleased over the Easter holiday to see evidence of people who were really enjoying themselves in the west country. I hope that people will have sunshine this weekend so as to have an opportunity to enjoy themselves again.

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

For the benefit of the UK Independence party donor who said this week that women should be banned from wearing trousers, may we please have a debate on the historic contribution that women in trousers have made to this country, including Amy Johnson from Hull, who wore trousers as an aviator, the women’s Land Army in the second world war, and Princess Elizabeth, who wore trousers as a mechanic serving in the second world war?

[Mr Lansley]

Well, good for her. I cannot promise a debate, but I entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s sentiments.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Bowel cancer is often a completely curable disease, but a key to successful treatment is early diagnosis. May we have an urgent statement about the effectiveness of bowel cancer screening programmes, particularly in relation to access to colonoscopies, and a comparison between the effectiveness of bowel cancer screening services in Wales and in England so that we can gain best practice?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond in detail, particularly on the point about comparisons. We should be very pleased that during this Parliament we have seen the roll-out of the bowel cancer screening programme across England. We look forward very positively to being able to roll out flexible sigmoidoscopy, as we plan over the next three years, which will enable not only early diagnosis of bowel cancer but early interventions. That will make a further big, positive step forward.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House for a statement or a debate in Government time on the operation of the Access to Work scheme? I recently met a constituent who faces losing her job because she cannot pay through the scheme for a qualified British sign language interpreter. This is a very important and urgent matter on which Members need to be able to question Ministers.

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady will know, through the Work programme and the new Help to Work scheme, further details of which were announced this week, we are focusing on ensuring that we give everybody, including those whom it has clearly been most difficult to help, the support that is necessary to enable them to get back into work. However, she has raised a particular, and interesting, issue. I hope that she might give my office further details, and I will ask a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions to respond.

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

The Leader of the House will know that I previously presented a Bill to the House that considers increasing the sentence for those who cause death while driving when they have been disqualified from driving from the current two years to 14 years, in line with the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. I know that the Government were sympathetic to what I said then. Will the Leader of the House clarify whether they have taken a decision on the Bill prior to next week’s debate on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right that the Government do indeed share his concern about those who drive while disqualified and cause death or serious injury on our roads. He will know from my statement that the first day on Report of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will be on Monday 12 May. I direct him to that debate, where I know he will be in his place to hear the response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.

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

One and a half million pounds worth of donations to the Tory party from private health care providers resulted in £1.5 billion—

[Mr Lansley]

indicated dissent.

[Debbie Abrahams]

There is evidence. The Leader of the House is shaking his head, but I have cast-iron evidence. Those donations resulted in £1.5 billion-worth of NHS contracts going to those same providers. Will arrange a statement to explain why the Government are refusing to exempt the NHS from the EU-US trade negotiations, thereby threatening the future of the NHS as we know it—or is that also linked to those donations?

[Mr Lansley]

I scarcely know where to begin in refuting that nonsense. First, donations to the Conservative party do not result in contracts—they simply do not. It is a complete travesty and a disgrace to suggest that the people who take procurement decisions within the NHS would be influenced in any way—or, frankly, know whether the individuals associated with any particular company happened to have political affiliations or otherwise.

On the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations, I wish that Labour Members—this was evidenced during our debate on the subject—would focus on the dramatic potential for increasing trade, jobs and growth in Europe and America rather than trying to focus on something that will not have the effect that the hon. Lady describes, because within the NHS there is already, as there was under her party’s Government before the last election, scope for private companies in America to access contracts if they are able to provide the best services inside the United Kingdom.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1306?

[That this House notes that Essex County Council is turning off street lights across Essex between the hours of midnight and 5am to make savings; further notes that turning off street lights in Harlow affects many Harlow residents, many of whom work late shifts; acknowledges that some Harlow residents have expressed concerns that they feel unsafe; and therefore calls on Essex County Council to review its decision and shorten the amount of time that street lights are turned off each night in Harlow.]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Essex county council is turning off the street lights in Harlow between the hours of midnight and 5 am. This is affecting many residents, particularly females and shift workers late at night. Will he look at this issue and contact the Department for Communities and Local Government to see what can be done to extend the hours that the lights are on, and may we have a debate on it?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and he will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is also aware of it, as shown in a reply he gave during Question Time yesterday. Street lighting is the responsibility of the local highways authorities, including Essex county council in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government advise that, when considering its street-lighting needs—including when considering turning them off—an authority should work closely with the emergency services and other key partners on community safety.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), the Leader of the House will know that the country will be looking to Parliament to play our part in the world war one commemorations, and I know that Members on both sides of the House will wish to do so. We had a very good debate in this place last year, but this year many of the key anniversaries fall during the summer recess, so may I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate before the summer recess, so that Parliament can be given the opportunity to pay its own tribute to those who served us 100 years ago?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is right and I hope to be able to announce such a debate before the summer recess. Since our last debate on the subject I, like many Members throughout the House, have seen great evidence of how constituents are proposing to commemorate the events of 100 years ago.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Keep Sunday Special campaign has insisted there should be no change to Sunday shop opening hours and it is supported by the Home Retail Group and the workers. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate to put this matter to rest for retailers and workers?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not aware of the plans to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot promise a debate, but I will check to see whether there is any way in which we can provide him with the reassurance he seeks.

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

Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to report to the House when she will be taking the next step in delivering a modern slavery Bill? She asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to set up a cross-party Joint Committee and it has just reported after 10 weeks of work. We need to build a consensus for a modern slavery Bill, which we promised on the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce’s Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

We are very grateful to the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not in a position at this stage to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

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

The Leader of the House must have been dismayed with the compensation award made to convicted triple killer Kevan Thakrar. Given that the Government have a bit of time on their hands, why do they not introduce a short, simple Bill that says that any future awards of that kind must be paid directly to a special fund for victims?

[Mr Lansley]

Other Members will have been just as dismayed about that. I am not sure whether what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the right solution. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the hon. Gentleman with his views.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Government issued a ministerial statement on fixed odds betting terminals, which resulted in a sharp rise in bookmakers’ share value. When will Members get an opportunity to debate the proposals in full? I hope it will be before the Whitsun recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot at this stage say that there will be a debate on those issues, but it is important that the written ministerial statement said positive things about providing safeguards in relation to fixed odds, high-stakes betting terminals. It also said what I think communities will regard as very encouraging things about how local planning authorities can make their own judgments about the extent of change of use with regard to betting shops on local high streets.

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

May we have a debate on long-term unemployment? In my constituency, the number of over-25s on jobseeker’s allowance for more than two years has risen by 41% in the past year alone. The rate is now the eighth highest in England and Wales. Instead of recognising that their Work programme is failing, Ministers now want to punish my constituents even further with yet another of their silly schemes, which has been shown not to work. Instead, they should implement Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee, which I guarantee would work.

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said, I hope there might be an opportunity for a debate on employment, if not before then during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, which might include a proper focus on it. That would enable us to celebrate the fact that there is a record level of employment; that employment is up by more than 1.5 million since the general election; that youth unemployment is down 38,000 on the previous quarter and lower than at the time of the election; and that the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is at its lowest in five years.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May we have an oral statement on the inspectorate of constabulary report, which says that police are failing to record up to 20% of crime? The situation is intolerable.

[Mr Lansley]

The Home Secretary rightly commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake that inquiry and is very clear that we want to ensure that police-recorded crime figures are robust. Those figures and the independent crime survey point strongly to the same conclusion, which is that levels of crime are falling and policing is working. On debating the HMIC report, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is an interim report, so the Home Secretary will no doubt report to the House in due course.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the excellent review of diagnosis and treatment carried out by the Pernicious Anaemia Society, which is based in Bridgend? Pernicious anaemia involves memory loss, poor concentration, debilitating tiredness, personality and balance problems and mood swings. Two thirds of those who responded to the review were unhappy with their current treatment. That is diabolical. May we have an urgent debate on the issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I can well understand how strongly the hon. Lady feels about pernicious anaemia, which she rightly describes as a very debilitating condition. I will ask my colleagues at the Department of Health to respond to her about the position generally. She and other Members might like to seek an Adjournment debate in order to raise the issues.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the post-Easter week?

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

The business for the week commencing 28 April is as follows:

Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.

Tuesday 29 April—Motions relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Defence Reform Bill.

Wednesday 30 April—Motion relating to section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, followed by consideration in Committee of the Wales Bill.

Thursday 1 May—A debate on a motion relating to cervical cancer screening tests and the case of Sophie Jones, followed by a general debate on freedom of thought, conscience and religion around the world. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 5 May will include:

Monday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 6 May—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Wales Bill.

Wednesday 7 May—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 8 May—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 1 May will be:

Thursday 1 May—Debate on the Second Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on the impact of changes to housing benefit in Wales, followed by a debate on the Third Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on the Work programme in Wales.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for after the Easter recess. I also thank him for finally providing, in a written ministerial answer earlier this week, what I hope will be the actual date for the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps he can now confirm that Prorogation will be at least a week, or even two weeks, early owing to the Government’s chronic lack of business. Could I make the Leader of the House an offer? If he cannot think of anything to do with the acres of spare time the Government have left free, he can always give us more Opposition days.

On the first two days back after the recess, we will have the chance to debate the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail Bill. Will the Leader of the House explain how he plans to schedule the day and a half allocated to the Second Reading and the subsequent motions? Given the fate last night of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who was unceremoniously sacked as a Tory vice-chair for opposing HS2 and for his overly honest tweets, is the Leader of the House expecting any more trouble on his own side?

This week, the other place voted to introduce in the Immigration Bill legal guardians for victims of child trafficking. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government accept this amendment, and when he expects the long awaited modern slavery Bill, which ought to have a bearing on this matter, to have its Second Reading?

I have here a copy of a blatantly party political letter sent out by the Prime Minister to millions of businesses across the UK days before election purdah. It is perfectly possible to keep businesses informed of tax changes cheaply and cost-effectively via a Government website. It is certainly not appropriate for Lynton Crosby’s Tory election soundbite to be posted directly to millions of voters on a No. 10 letterhead signed by the Prime Minister, at the taxpayer’s expense, just ahead of elections. Will the Leader of the House tell us how much producing, printing and posting this blatant Tory propaganda has cost the public purse? Why did the permanent secretary at the Treasury, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, tell the Public Accounts Committee on Monday that he had absolutely no knowledge of it? Can we expect the Communities and Local Government Secretary to admonish the Prime Minister for this blatant example of propaganda on the public purse?

The past week has done serious damage to the reputation of this place and demonstrated the Prime Minister’s total lack of judgment. It was clear to everybody but him that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), had to go from her post as Culture Secretary. On Friday, he wanted the matter to be left at that 31-second apology; on Monday, he was dismissing rising public anger, saying it was his job to pick the Cabinet; and by yesterday he was claiming it was all the Leader of the Opposition’s fault for not demanding the Culture Secretary’s resignation soon enough. After this fiasco, it is little wonder that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being openly called into question.

The number of women in the Cabinet is now at its lowest since the Tories were last in government. We have a Minister for Women who did not vote for same-sex marriage, and we have a Department for Women and Equalities that does not appear to exist any more. Perhaps they should just come clean and rename it the Department for very low Tory priorities. Will the Leader of the House tell us who now has overall responsibility for the Government Equalities Office? Can he tell us which Department the new Minister for Women will sit in and who she will report to? Will he now tell us which Minister is ultimately accountable to Parliament on these extremely important issues, as the Prime Minister’s official spokesman could not do so yesterday. May we have a debate in the acres of Government time on what has happened to the Prime Minister’s pre-election promise to ensure that one third of all his Ministers would be women? It is no wonder that women just do not trust this Government.

As this will be the last business questions before the recess, may I thank all the staff of the House and Hansard for the work they do and wish them a happy Easter? I wonder if the Leader of the House will ensure that while we are in recess, the House authorities conduct the necessary repairs to the roof in Portcullis House which, like this Government, appears to be well on its way to caving in. I am sure he would not want anyone to think he did not fix the roof while the sun was shining.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement of business, and I am pleased to join her in wishing all the staff of the House a happy and restful short recess over Easter.

I was able to confirm this week the date of the state opening of Parliament. It will be Wednesday 4 June. As I think the House will understand, this was consequent on the change arising from the cancellation of the G8 summit. The adjusted timing of the meeting of G7 Ministers allowed us to have the state opening on Wednesday 4 June.

I cannot announce the date of Prorogation. It will be subject to the progress of business. I am surprised at the hon. Lady’s argument that we are not busy. We are busy. This week we considered the Finance Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. On Monday, at the request of Members, including three Select Committees of the House, we provided time for a debate on the justice and home affairs opt-out. We concluded two hours early because there were not sufficient Members who wanted to debate it. The Government are happy to make available the time that the House is looking for, but it has been notable on a number of occasions, as I have told the shadow Leader of the House before, that her colleagues will not take the time available to scrutinise the Government. Perhaps they find it embarrassing to come to the House and attempt to criticise the Government, when they know perfectly well that they have no credible alternative. That may just be the way it is.

As it happens, when we return from recess, we have a busy two days, as the shadow Leader of the House correctly—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is disparaging the Wednesday. As I recall, we are considering in Committee the Wales Bill. I am sure that Members from Wales will note that the shadow Leader of the House thinks that consideration of the Wales Bill is not important, but there we are. There will be an opportunity on the Wales Bill to see whether Labour Members will turn up and criticise our proposal for further tax devolution in circumstances where they do not appear to have any policy. They are at sixes and sevens about whether they are in favour or against our plans for further tax devolution in Wales. We shall see.

The shadow Leader of the House rightly asked about the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill. I can confirm that on Monday 28 April I will table a motion, the effect of which will be to allow that Second Reading to take place until 11 pm on that day, so a maximum amount of time will be made available. The maximum of seven and a half hours will, of course, depend on whether there are requirements for a statement or an urgent question, but that means it will be a very full debate on the Monday. On the Tuesday, I can confirm that we will allocate up to four hours for consideration of the motions which I think Members can see on the Order Paper today relating to the hybrid Bill procedures, including petitioning and instructions to the Select Committee and the establishment of the Select Committee. I hope that that will allow Members to have the maximum time for the discussion of the principles of the Bill on the Monday and additional time to debate the processes of the hybrid Bill on the Tuesday.

In total, we are giving more than a day and a half for Second Reading, and not trying to push through all those issues of process and principles in the course of one day. I heard, as did my colleagues in the usual channels, that Members wanted additional time to debate the Second Reading of the HS2 Bill, and I think that makes a very good outcome.

I am not sure what point the shadow Leader of the House was trying to make about yesterday’s Government appointments, because we are very clear about them. The Equalities Minister and the Minister for Women are supremely qualified to speak on those subjects. They are senior Ministers who will have an opportunity to represent those interests at the Cabinet table. If anything, having two Ministers will strengthen the voice of women and equality issues for the future. The Minister for Women will report to the Prime Minister and the Equalities Minister is also the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I think that is all very clear.

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the Standards Committee report, which was published this time last week. Everyone in this House has a collective and individual responsibility. The process is transparent. We have not got across to the public the way in which this House’s expenses system works in this Parliament. There are more than 200 Members who were not in previous Parliaments, but none the less they are having to argue with their constituents about an expenses system to which they were never party. We have to fight a battle in order for the public to understand that we have reformed the expenses system. It is overseen and enforced independently by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. If there is an appeal, it goes not to Members of Parliament, but to a lower-tier tribunal, which is a judicial process. I think that that is what the public have wanted from the expenses system since May 2010 and that it is what they want for the future.

We know that there are legacy cases. Fundamentally, any sanctions under the standards process must come back to this House and we must be accountable for the quality of the enforcement of the Members’ code of conduct. When I responded to an urgent question on Tuesday, the Chair of the Standards Committee made it clear that it will announce shortly the terms of reference for an inquiry into the current system that will draw on the report that its lay members published on Tuesday. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we should work with the Committee on a cross-party basis, in whatever way we can, to strengthen the independence of the system of scrutiny of legacy expenses cases, the independent input into any investigation, and the enforcement of the Members’ code of conduct.

We have also committed to introducing a recall Bill, which will provide for constituents to sign a petition in order to force a by-election in cases where a Member has been found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing. I hope we can work together on the issues, to give the public reassurance. I was disappointed that earlier this week the shadow Leader of the House sought to turn the decision of the Standards Committee into a partisan matter. I think that got the tone wrong. We need to work together to restore trust in the political system. That is a responsibility for the whole of this House, and individual political parties should not try to score political points.

Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment to the Immigration Bill was passed in the House of Lords and it raises important points. I listened to her speech, and at the end of it she said she wanted the issues to be addressed by the modern slavery Bill. The draft Bill has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny and the Joint Committee has produced a report on it, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will respond to that.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the vice-chair of the Conservative party and a letter. Those are matters for the Conservative party, and I answer for the coalition Government at this Dispatch Box. I will ask the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), to write to the shadow Leader of the House about the issues.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that a number of the Procedure Committee’s fabulous reports are gathering dust at the moment, particularly those relating to programming and private Members’ Bills, while a couple of others are equally deserving of time in this place. Will he find an occasion in the next few weeks to allow me to introduce those reports for debate on the Floor of the House in this Session?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Procedure Committee makes a very good point. I assure him that the reports are not gathering dust; as he knows from our conversations, we are actively seeking to take forward his Committee’s recommendations—not least in relation to private Members’ Bills and programming—on the basis of consensus, as we always seek to do in this House. My hon. Friend has highlighted that there is pressure for business that we need to transact before the conclusion of this Session. I hope that I can satisfy him on that matter before the end of this Session.

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

I, too, have received a letter from No. 10 Downing street this week. What is most alarming is that the information can have come only from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. At the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, the permanent secretary of HMRC acknowledged that it sometimes shares information with other Departments. Will the Leader of the House take more seriously the issue of how No. 10 and the Conservative party can send out letters to people using information from the HMRC database?

[Mr Lansley]

I will simply repeat what I have said. I will ask the Minister without Portfolio to respond to the hon. Lady and the shadow Leader of the House. I am not aware of any such transfer of data in relation to the letter. I was not even party to the process of preparing the letter.

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

Why are the Government so frightened of giving Members of Parliament a decent time to debate the HS2 Bill on Second Reading? Quite frankly, giving us an extra hour, with an extra half day for the other motions on the Order Paper, is all well and good, but may I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to item 35 on the list of remaining orders and notices, which is a motion in my name asking for two full days of debate on HS2? After all, for the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken by a Government and after our constituents have been blighted by it for four years, that is not too much to ask, and not granting it will bring our procedures in this House into disrepute.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend feels that I have not responded positively to the representations that she and our other hon. Friends made at business questions last week. We have, indeed, responded positively. Up to seven and a half hours are available on Monday 28 April for a debate on the principles of the Bill, and four hours are available on Tuesday 29 April for the further hybrid Bill procedures, which are themselves important and form a substantial part of the overall debate on Second Reading. I acknowledge that had it all been done in one day, that would have meant a very congested debate, but I think that that is pretty positive.

A Second Reading debate on a normal sitting day very often takes not the full amount of time, but sometimes—with statements and urgent questions—perhaps five hours or even down to four and a half hours. On this occasion, if we can minimise statements and urgent questions on Monday 28 April, we can have seven and a half hours of debate that day, with four hours the following day, which I calculate is broadly equivalent to two days of debate.

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

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

“What we are trying to do with the personal independence payment is to introduce it gradually”.—[Official Report, 9 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 264.]

My constituent Thomas O’Donnell originally made his claim eight months ago. He has only just had an assessment, and he is still not receiving any payment. He has serious epilepsy, and he cannot afford to eat. I have many other constituents who have waited months for an assessment. Please may we have an urgent statement from the Department for Work and Pensions about what it will do to ensure that my constituents and people everywhere get the support that they desperately need?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is no doubt aware that a written ministerial statement on the independent review of personal independence payment assessment is on the Order Paper to be made today, so she will have the chance to look at that. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the old system was broken: most claimants were getting indefinite awards without systematic reassessments. It was important to bring in a system that better reflects today’s understanding of disability and targets support to those who need it most. Last month’s National Audit Office report acknowledged that the reform started on time and on budget, and we have reduced risk during its introduction by rolling it out in phases.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

As we approach the centenary of the great war, will the Government find time for a debate on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does a wonderful job across the world of looking after the fallen of the first and second world wars? Unfortunately, military personnel who have died in the past 68 years are covered not by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission but by the Ministry of Defence, through which funding is at a much lower level.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that I and colleagues on both sides of the House are keen to discuss. A large amount of impressive work, not least by Members, is going into securing a commemoration of the events 100 years ago, including the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission since then, which was celebrated wonderfully in a recent book. I hope we will have an opportunity before the summer recess for a further debate that enables Members on both sides of the House to raise issues relating to that commemoration.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There are serious concerns about air pollution in our cities, notably London, and there is particular concern about the effect of diesel particulates on human health. It is now a matter of urgency to reduce diesel emissions, which could be achieved through a substantial modal shift of freight traffic from road to rail. Such a modal shift cannot happen unless there is major investment in large-gauge rail freight capacity capable of carrying lorries on trains. Will the Leader of the House seek to find Government time for a debate on this important matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately promise a debate. The subject might lend itself to an Adjournment debate or a debate through the Backbench Business Committee, as Members on both sides of the House, on a non-party basis, are rightly interested in these issues. HS2 affords a substantial opportunity to increase freight capacity on the railways, which should be part of the debate when we come back. It is not simply about a transfer from road to rail; it is about trying to introduce some of the new technologies that may dramatically reduce the impact of road traffic on air quality.

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

This is two for the price of one, because I am asking this question with the strong support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who cannot be here this morning. Given that women’s rights are currently so much in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, may we have an urgent statement on the continuing scandal of the cancellation of service widows’ pensions when they remarry or cohabit? The cost to the Ministry of Defence of removing this archaic rule would be £250,000—less than that when we take away the cost of policing the rule. This is an anachronism that ought to be removed as soon as possible.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence to reply in detail. He will understand that if service personnel die as a direct result of service, their widow still receives their pension, even if the widow were to remarry or cohabit. The treatment of widows where the spouse’s death is not as a result of service is broadly the same as for other public service pension schemes. The armed forces pension scheme 2005, and the new pension scheme to be introduced in 2015, will continue to pay widows a pension irrespective of how their spouse died. There are further detailed points that I know my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will want to convey to him and other Members.

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

Issues to do with the past in Northern Ireland are matters for this place as they are not devolved. May we have a debate in Government time on issues to do with victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland so that legislation accurately reflects what most people would reasonably regard as what constitutes a victim? This is particularly pertinent given that today the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland announced that Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein councillors in Newry breached equality rules by naming a children’s play park after an IRA terrorist.

[Mr Lansley]

I am not familiar with the issue in Newry, so I will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I will ask her to respond to the right hon. Gentleman in more detail. I entirely understand the responsibility that we have in relation to victims. I hope that she will be able to give him some reassurance on that matter.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made a very good point. The problem in this House is that we have a dictator who decides the timings, even if it is a benevolent dictator in the form of the Leader of the House. Surely meeting the commitment in the coalition agreement to a House business committee would remove all these concerns. Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week to say that we will have a House business committee very soon?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the difficulties associated with the proposals for a House business committee. In a sense, we are a Committee of the whole House on business. Last week, I received representations about how much time should be available on Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. As I have explained to the House, the time available is not just a day and a half, but more than a day and a half. It could amount to close to the equivalent of two days’ debate on Second Reading and the other motions.

[Mrs Gillan]

One hour!

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend is saying that there is one hour. There will be an additional hour on the Monday for Second Reading and there will be four hours on motions relating to the hybrid Bill on the Tuesday. That is a substantial addition. This has been discussed through the usual channels and we have listened to the voices in this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I say gently to the Leader of the House that, in extending the Monday sitting by an hour, I feel sure that he was taking pity on the Chair and did not want the Chair to be occupied beyond 11 o’clock. For my part, I would be quite happy to sit in the Chair until at least 3 or 4 in the morning if it facilitated the contribution of Back-Bench colleagues to the debate. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I mention that point purely in passing, but these are matters for him.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard that there was a slogan after the first world war, which I think came from Lloyd George, that promised “homes fit for heroes”. When we get back to our constituencies, all of us in this House will hear people say time and again over the recess, “When will so many people get the opportunity of a home of their own, whether it is a privately rented home, social housing or a home that is bought with a mortgage?” This is a national crisis. May we have a debate on it as soon as we get back?

[Mr Lansley]

That matter came up a number of times in the Budget debate. An important point in that debate was that this Government are putting more and more effective resources into measures such as the Help to Buy scheme and the efforts of housing associations to lend to support additional house building. House building in this country hit a low under the last Government in the wake of the collapse in 2008 and in the midst of the Labour recession. We have built up the number of starts. If the hon. Gentleman would like to take a detour on his way to Huddersfield, he could see houses being built all over South Cambridgeshire.

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

Will the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport make a statement to the House on the provision of high-speed broadband in very rural areas? I fear that the success of the roll-out in Somerset and Devon will be undone by the failure to reach the last 10% of properties. That is partly because of the requirement for match funding, which is difficult to meet for sparsely populated areas, and partly because of the effect of the over-reliance on BT on areas to which it clearly does not want to or cannot provide a service.

[Mr Lansley]

I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State and I think that he will want to take it forward. The former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), is to be congratulated on the steps that she has taken to bring our broadband programme to where it is, with 10,000 homes a week getting access to broadband and an investment of more than £1 billion in our broadband and mobile infrastructure. It will deliver a lot of additional connectivity.

My hon. Friend is right, as I know from the rural areas in Cambridgeshire. The Connecting Cambridgeshire programme will get us to 98% of homes, but it has required significant local authority funding to establish the contract with BT and attract the additional Government funding. I know that the Secretary of State will want to respond to him about these matters.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s plans to fully privatise search and rescue? That would provide us with the opportunity to discuss moving search and rescue headquarters from the base in my constituency to Caernarfon airport, where according to the Environment Agency it will be built on a floodplain. We need to have such discussions before the Government rush ahead with their plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately when we return, but I will discuss the matter with the relevant Ministers, particularly the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman raises, so that they might respond to him.

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

At the end of last month the Education Secretary announced a list of more than 20 children’s institutions to be investigated for links with Savile. That is on top of the growing list of more than 30 NHS institutions being investigated, with no date for the publication of the review, and the reviews of the BBC, the Church and so on. Given the Government’s continued refusal to have an overarching inquiry into historical child abuse, may we at least have a debate on what exactly has been happening and what is being done to restore public confidence in child protection in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lansley]

I know my hon. Friend will understand that we have continued to believe that establishing an overarching inquiry, far from speeding up the process of finding out what happened so that we can ensure that it does not happen again, would delay it. It is important to make progress, because shockingly widespread evidence is emerging of the extent to which Savile obtained access to hospitals, schools and care homes. We need to get to the bottom of it, and I know that Kate Lampard is doing so in the health service. There is more to be done in the case of education, and the BBC is approaching two and a half months late in publishing the Dame Janet Smith inquiry. There is a lot to be done, and I will of course talk to the Ministers concerned about how we can ensure that as much as possible is done as quickly as possible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

As we approach the wedding season, many British citizens who have extended family abroad will become increasingly concerned about visa arrangements to ensure that their relatives, particularly from India and Pakistan, can be here to participate. Will the Leader of the House speak to both the Foreign Office and the Home Office to ensure that the consular arrangements are in place and that there is good staffing of entry clearance officers to cope with the influx of visa applications for that purpose?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course be glad to do as the hon. Gentleman asks, recognising how strongly people feel about the opportunity for their family to be with them on special occasions. I hope that the Foreign Office and Home Office will be able to respond positively to him.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

As this is export week, will the Leader of the House grant time to discuss the value of local export drives such as the one that I am organising in Tamworth with UK Trade & Investment, and the help that local retail banks can provide in sponsoring and promoting those events? We often hear about the less attractive side of banking, but retail banks can help small businesses to export, and a debate would help to even up the balance.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I pay tribute to UKTI, which, with the Government’s active support—not least that of our excellent trade Ministers—has dramatically improved the level of support available to small and medium-sized businesses in particular. I know that the Government are pushing hard for many medium-sized businesses to be given one-to-one tailored support that enables them to be active exporters. I hope we can achieve more of that, and I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend is doing with his colleagues in Tamworth to help to make that happen.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

After four years of a Government who promised reform, we still have an election system that cheats all but the two main parties. We have peerages that can be bought by political donations, lobbyists who are free to buy favours and influence, and one civil servant who negotiated a £5 billion reduction in Deloitte’s tax bill retired months later and took a job with that company. Can we have a debate on whether the epitaph for this sorry Government should be, “They multiplied and allowed corruption to flourish”?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in several respects. In particular, it is not possible to buy peerages, and the House of Lords Appointments Commission is clear about its responsibility to make sure that that does not happen. Additionally, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the coalition Government had a coalition programme that included giving the public the opportunity to make a decision on changes to the electoral system, and the public—the people whom we represent—chose not to do so.

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

Sometimes my motives are misconstrued, but I always strive to be helpful, and I would like to help the Leader of the House. He has been very generous in allowing an extra 60 minutes for the HS2 debate, but if he were happy to test our stamina by lifting the 10 o’clock rule and having the vote the following day, those Members who did not want to stay until the early hours for a vote could come back then, while those of us who really want to push the case for or against HS2 would have ample opportunity to do so. That may be a way forward.

[Mr Lansley]

I am always grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least when he is being helpful. The additional hour—if we are able to avoid urgent questions or statements—would give us substantial time for debate on that Monday. As a matter of principle, and especially on important matters, we should try to avoid separating the vote on an issue from the debate on it. It is also important for the House, notwithstanding your generosity, Mr Speaker, to try to achieve the conclusion of a debate and the vote at a time when our constituents might reasonably expect to be watching it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We now have a women’s Minister who could not also have the equalities brief because she voted against gay marriage, and an equalities Minister who said that there were no women members of the Monetary Policy Committee because it was appointed on merit. May we have the novel innovation of a joint statement by the women’s Minister and the equalities Minister so that we can find out whether they are singing from the same song sheet?

[Mr Lansley]

I know both the new equalities Minister and the new women’s Minister very well, and the hon. Gentleman is on a very sticky wicket in attempting to criticise them.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement on internet security? Several experts have called for everyone to change their internet passwords because of a virus that has infected many websites. Indeed, earlier today I tried to change my password to “Labour’s economic policy”, but it was judged to be too weak.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes both a good comment and a good joke. I saw the press reports and we still have more to do to understand and combat the risks to security on the internet. I note that police forces need constantly to think about how they can acquire the expertise themselves. He makes a very important point.

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

Could provision be made for a debate on the performance of category B railway stations? Luton railway station is in desperate need of refurbishment and investment. It has actually gone backwards, not forwards in terms of disability compliance, because of the Thameslink programme.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have the largest investment programme in the railways since the Victorian era. Network Rail is investing £38 billion, which includes a substantial upgrade to many of its railway stations. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport, in consultation with Network Rail, to reply on the specific points relating to Luton.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Noting the fact that HS2 is of course an impressive flagship for infrastructure, we must not forget smaller-scale activities. May I therefore commend to the Lord Privy Seal a bridge over the River Severn and moving Stonehouse station? Those two things would be a real boost to my constituency.

[Mr Lansley]

Despite the considerable financial difficulty the Government inherited, we have none the less been able to prioritise capital infrastructure projects that will deliver our potential for growth. As my hon. Friend will know, towards the end of this year the Chancellor will publish the long-term capital plan. I will direct his points on those particular projects to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport and the Treasury.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Service Complaints Commissioner’s report for 2013 reveals that complaints about bullying, harassment and discrimination account for 43% of Army allegations, and that bullying was up by a third. Complaints are made disproportionately by female and ethnic minority personnel. Equality and diversity training in the Army consists of an initial two-hour training course and a half-hour refresher every year. May we have a debate on the report and on how to tackle an embedded culture of bullying, harassment and discrimination that is blighting the lives of many in our armed forces?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I saw the Service Complaints Commissioner’s report. It is important that we further strengthen the role of the commissioner and raise awareness of all the issues to which she refers. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence to respond, but I assure her that I know, from my conversations with colleagues, that these issues are taken very seriously.

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

May we have a debate on the use of public money in murder cases, so that the House can consider whether it is appropriate for legal aid to be spent on paying for an appeal by one of the murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby? The public are rightly outraged by this and believe the money would be better spent on providing a fitting memorial for Fusilier Rigby.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes his own point. What happened in Woolwich last year was a sickening and barbaric attack. Our thoughts remain with the family of the victim and with the community. They are grieving for someone they love. They have lost a brave soldier. On legal aid, my hon. Friend will know that legal aid is available for all criminal cases in the Court of Appeal. However, a judge has to grant leave to appeal and the court can also grant legal aid.

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

Momentous changes are taking place in the housing market: the private rented sector has grown enormously and has now overtaken the social sector; owner occupation is in decline; and supply is not matching demand. I challenge the figures the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on this matter. Homelessness is on the increase. May we have a debate in Government time on this important subject? It is critical to my constituents and to constituents in every area of the country.

[Mr Lansley]

It was under the last Government that the number of social houses fell by 400,000. It is this Government who are investing and planning to build 180,000 additional affordable homes, and housing waiting lists are currently falling. Those are important steps. However, we need to build more houses, and, in doing so, recognise the need for a vibrant private rented sector and a strong social housing sector, as well as the support for owner occupation that we are providing through the Help to Buy scheme.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I encourage the Leader of the House to call the bluff of the shadow Leader of the House and accept her application for more Opposition day debates? Indeed, may I encourage him to allow the Opposition a whole week of parliamentary time? Opposition day debates are badly argued and poorly attended, and demonstrate very bad preparation. If we had a whole week of them, the incoherence and inadequacy of the Opposition’s alternative programme for government would be plain for the world to see.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend tempts me, but there is a lot of business for us to accommodate before the end of the Session. In any case, I think that what he has said is not only true, but was amply demonstrated during the Budget debate.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), may I ask the Leader of the House to answer another question? According to Generation Rent, which represents the interests of private tenants throughout the country, half those tenants believe that they are paying too high a rent, and two thirds of them believe that they are insecure in their assured shorthold six-month tenancies. Does the Leader of the House not think that it is time for the Government once again to review their whole policy on the private rented sector, given the excessive charges and rents and the deep insecurity that many private tenants feel? Can he not ensure that we bring some justice to the people—nearly 4 million in England alone—who are living in the private rented sector?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman made the same point, rather more briefly, to the Prime Minister, and I agree with what the Prime Minister said. We cannot start trying to distort the market or control rents, because that would destroy the private rented sector. The availability of private rented accommodation creates diversity in the housing market, and enables people to be more flexible in relation to housing supply. That is very important, not least because—as our country’s economy, unlike many other European economies, has demonstrated —housing markets can help to provide flexible labour markets.

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

When I opened the Harrogate beer festival last week—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, it was an arduous task. When I opened the festival, I was told by local brewers Eric Lucas of Daleside and Simon Theakston of Theakston that the recent beer duty cuts had galvanised the industry into increased confidence. One of the effects of that has been the stimulation of export activity, and both companies are reporting very encouraging trends. However, the overall picture in this country is of a big food and drink deficit. Please may we have a debate about food and drink exports, and about how we can help this important sector to grow?

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted to hear about the optimism among brewers in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend has also made a good point about the food and drink sector, which has reported export sales of £19.4 billion in 2013. That is a very big contribution to our economy and our exports. I cannot promise a debate about the sector immediately, but it would be good to have such a debate, because I think that this country has a great deal to offer the world through its food and drink exports.

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

I am sure the Leader of the House will be concerned to learn that the insurance premium of a small business that was flooded during the December tidal surge in Hull has been increased from £1,100 to £6,500, as a result of which it is unlikely to remain viable. May we have a debate about why the Government chose not to include small businesses in the coalition’s Flood Re scheme, and about what other support can be given to small businesses that may flood in the future?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that in the debates on the Water Bill we were very clear that if we were to include businesses in the Flood Re scheme, the nature of the scheme would mean that the cost of that subsidy would have to be met out of other insurance premiums, and that would have taken the insurance premiums for everyone else on domestic premiums above £10. We have set out the reason why we are not doing that, therefore, but, as it happens, we will I hope have an opportunity soon to consider the Lords amendments to the Water Bill. That might give the hon. Lady an opportunity to debate this issue.

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

The Football Association has launched its inclusion advisory board which is working to encourage more involvement in football by women and the minorities community. May we have a debate on that, and on what other sports are doing to address this? By way of a declaration, I should mention that I am a parliamentary fellow with the Football Association and prior to that with Sport England.

[Mr Lansley]

I have noticed that Members often ask for debates on matters relating to football and I agree with my hon. Friend that that is another important and interesting issue that would merit debate. We had a debate recently about participation in non-league football, but I think there is an as yet unmet need for debate about the governance of football and many other issues relating to football.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told the House last week that Labour’s manifesto proposed the selling off of Royal Mail. As this is not correct, please can we have a statement from the Prime Minister setting the record straight?

[Mr Lansley]

What the Prime Minister set out is that the Labour party before the last election was very clear about its commitment to bringing private capital into the Royal Mail. If we were going to deliver a successful Royal Mail, it was absolutely essential that its investment programme should be funded by private capital, and what we have achieved has done that—and the Labour party, after years of failing to do that while recognising it was essential, should just recognise that fact.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I welcome the £200 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for pothole repairs, but is my right hon. Friend aware that on the 125 miles of road in Harlow the number of defects has increased? There were 632 individual potholes in the first quarter of 2014 in Harlow alone. May we have a statement regarding any extra support being provided to local authorities to tackle potholes on our roads and to make the lives of Harlow motorists easier?

[Mr Lansley]

I did not know the precise number, but I am not surprised. I think many Members will know, as my hon. Friend does, how difficult the consequences have been of the very unusual—exceptional—weather we experienced this winter, and, indeed, the previous winter, both of which have had a substantial impact on the quality of our roads. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided the additional £200 million to address the problem of potholes, £168 million of that being made available to councils in England. I would just remind my hon. Friend and the House that that is additional to the over £1 billion provided to local authorities this year for tackling highways maintenance. Of course local authorities must decide their priorities, but much of that money will go towards repairing the quality of these roads.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Department of Health confirmed this week that in Halton the ratio of patients to GPs is much higher than the English national average. May I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate so the Department of Health can tell us what it is doing to increase the number of GPs in disadvantaged areas such as Halton?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to contact NHS England about that. One of its responsibilities is to commission those primary care services, and it has a statutory requirement to try to secure equal access to services, so equal access to general practice is one of the central objectives it has to meet.

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

Last January the Government committed to legislate to introduce a statutory code of practice for the large pub companies. The following consultation showed that 67% of those responding want the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s market rent-only option, which is also backed by the majority of MPs in this House. Considering that there has been something of a lack of Government business, it seems very strange that we have had no announcement. Will the Leader of the House tell us what is stopping the announcement of this legislation coming forward and who is stopping that happening?

[Mr Lansley]

I must take issue with my hon. Friend on one point: there is no lack of Government business. We have three carry-over Bills that have just completed their Committee stage, for example. We have not yet been able to schedule an opportunity for them to come back to the Floor of the House. We have also had consideration on the Floor of the House of the Wales Bill and the Finance Bill, and the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill has now been scheduled. A substantial amount of business is still being dealt with in this Session. In response to my hon. Friend’s question, we have had a consultation and we are considering the results. It will not surprise him to learn that I am not in any position to pre-empt the contents of the Queen’s Speech, in which the issues relating to future legislation will be clarified.

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

The first industrial city, Manchester, is proud of its trade links right across the world. They were established in the 19th century by the ship canal and are being continued by Manchester airport. Today, Manchester Airport Group announced the first direct flights for 16 years to south-east Asia, with Cathay Pacific flights to Hong Kong. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the all-party support for this development, which has come from the chamber of commerce, the combined authority, the local enterprise partnership, the Manchester-China forum and my predecessor, Paul Goggins, who fought hard for it. Will the Leader of the House also talk to the Secretary of State for Transport about arranging for some time in the House to make this announcement?

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted to have this opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating that new route and acknowledging all those who contributed to making it happen. I remember my own experience of working with the Manchester chamber of commerce, when I was with the British Chambers of Commerce, and I know what a remarkable institution it has been for bringing people together, from the 19th century right up to the 21st century, and for looking outwards. That is what we need to do: we need more exports, and we need to win in the global race. We have the businesses, the capabilities, the innovation and the skills, not least in a great city such as Manchester, and this is an opportunity for Manchester to go out there and sell.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on the decline of overseas student numbers, on how that is affecting the local economy, and on how Parliament and the Government can increase our educational exports?

[Mr Lansley]

That is an interesting issue, but I cannot promise an immediate debate. It is important to look at the statistics, which have shown variable results. Many universities in this country have successfully expanded their overseas student numbers in recent years, for example. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for Universities and Science have made it clear that there is no bar on universities taking students from overseas for legitimate courses. We have clamped down on abuse, but there is no limit on the number of students they can take. Indeed, the numbers coming from many countries have grown. There is clearly a problem in relation to India and Pakistan, however, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went there recently to make it clear that there is no limit on those countries’ students coming to our universities for their higher education.

State Opening of Parliament

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Written Statements

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

Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to agree to open a new Session of Parliament on Wednesday 4 June instead of on Tuesday 3 June. The date will better facilitate arrangements for the ceremony and other events that week including the now planned G7 summit in Brussels, Belgium.

Parliamentary Standards

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Leader of the House make a statement outlining in greater detail the possible changes, suggested by the Prime Minister on television, to the role of two Committees in regulating complaints about fellow MPs?

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

The House will be aware that complaints concerning the conduct of hon. Members, including that they have breached the Members code of conduct, are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and then considered by the Standards Committee. Additionally, since May 2010 issues relating to Members’ pay and expenses from that date onwards, including consideration of complaints, are undertaken by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

So two bodies are engaged with the issue of regulating the conduct of Members. As of now and for the future, in relation to expenses, IPSA is a wholly independent authority. Any issue would be considered by its compliance officer. The officer has powers to order repayment and to impose fines. Appeals may be made to a lower tier tribunal. Of course, IPSA is not responsible for considering issues relating to the expenses system prior to the last general election, nor other matters of conduct.

In January 2013, the Standards Committee was reconstituted following the decision of this House of 12 March 2012, reflected in Standing Order No. 149. This brought in three lay members. They participate in all the deliberations of the Committee. The Chair of the Standards Committee, by convention, seeks consensus amongst all the members of the Committee. The lay members, additionally, have a specific right to submit an opinion on any report to the House, and to have it published, under Standing Order No. 149. It is the job of this House, where necessary, to enforce the decisions of the Standards Committee.

The regulation of the conduct of Members is the responsibility of this House. For a wholly external body to consider complaints relating to the conduct of Members in this House, for example, on participation in debates and the registration of financial interests, risks undermining parliamentary privilege. That is why the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the role of lay members are incorporated within the work of a Select Committee of this House.

We have a relatively new system in place for the regulation both of parliamentary expenses and for independent input to the Standards Committee. Both should give the public greater confidence in the system. We must, however, seek to make these regulatory processes more widely understood and more transparent. If we can strengthen the independent input whilst respecting the exclusive cognisance of Parliament, we should do so. As the Prime Minister said, whilst these are matters for the House and not for the Government alone, we are open and willing to consider approaches which would further strengthen our regulatory system.

[John Mann]

I suspect that the Leader of the House has not had the opportunity to spend time on the doorstep in recent days. If he had, he would have found that there is virtual unanimity out there among the British people that Members of Parliament should not sit in judgment on Members of Parliament and that there should be no self-regulation by MPs of MPs. There are other issues about which the public are angry, but on this issue the Leader of the House has the power to initiate and to do something. Why will he not come forward with proposals immediately to end self-regulation in this House and in doing so, in the interests of transparency, ensure that the recordings of the Committee are made public so that people can see on what basis the Committee overturns the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman underestimates me. From my conversations with members of the public, it is very clear that many members of the public are not aware—even now—that, from May 2010 onwards and for the future, the expenses of Members of this House, including any complaints relating to expenses, are considered wholly independently by IPSA, which would, in the event of there being any overpayment or incorrect claim, have the power both to require repayment and to levy fines. That is wholly independent.

We must be aware—it is also clear—that were we to seek, for example, to make the Standards Committee or the Commissioner wholly independent, we would end up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards no longer having access to parliamentary privilege in relation to her investigations, which presently she does by virtue of her investigation being part of the proceedings of the Standards Committee of the House. It would be much more difficult for her to fulfil her role in the way in which she currently fulfils it.

As for the relationship between the Commissioner and the Committee, in my experience the Committee is wholly transparent about its decision-making process—about the arguments that it has examined and the decisions that it has reached—but that is a matter for the Committee, not for me.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that there should be some parliamentary input, for the reasons that he has set out so clearly. Surely this is not so much a failure of the system as a complete and abject failure of the media to report these matters objectively. As a result of that, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) observed, many of our constituents have failed to understand exactly what was stated in a recent report. Is it not time that the media paid proper attention to parliamentary reports rather than seeking to engage in witch hunts?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I am seeking particularly to ascribe blame anywhere. If—as may be the case—there is a misunderstanding about the nature and effectiveness of the regulatory system relating to complaints against Members, and if that is not well understood by our constituents, I think that we should take it on our own shoulders to do all that we can to make it clear that a robust system is in place.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Over the last few days, we have seen a recalcitrant Cabinet Minister unwilling to show remorse for obstructing an inquiry by the Standards Commissioner, and a growing public perception that a Committee of MPs has let her get away with it. That has thrown doubt on her conduct, and also on the judgment of the Prime Minister, who seems unwilling to act.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the present system does not command public support, and that we urgently need reform to restore public trust? I accept that we need time to develop a more radical reform, but will he consider, as a matter of urgency, removing the Government majority on the Standards Committee, and creating a more prominent role for its lay members? Will he also tell us what sanctions he considers appropriate for a Member who has breached the parliamentary code of conduct through his or her attitude to an inquiry?

In the foreword to the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister wrote:

“Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down.”

Is the Leader of the House satisfied that the Prime Minister has kept his promise?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House should consider this an opportunity to express criticism of an individual Member. I did not understand that it was proper to do that, Mr Speaker, but I am in your hands.

The decisions made by the Standards Committee are a matter for the Standards Committee. Let me at this point speak entirely personally, and not on behalf of the Government. I read the report that was published last Thursday very carefully, and, having done so, I felt that I understood and, as it happens—again, I am speaking entirely personally—agreed with the way in which the Standards Committee had gone about its task.

I am very surprised that the shadow Leader of the House should seek to obtrude a partisan element. The Standards Committee has never operated on a partisan basis, and I have no reason to believe that the party affiliation of its members has had any direct bearing on their views of the cases that they consider. On the contrary, they consider cases on their merits, and seek to reach a consensus.

The fact that the Committee has lay members—[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Leader of the House will listen to my answer, rather than simply interrupting from a sedentary position. She asked about the position of lay members. Regardless of the position taken by MPs who are members of the Standards Committee, if the lay members had expressed a dissenting view, that would have been more powerful than their having votes. Indeed, given that the Committee did not take any votes, the question of votes was really neither here nor there. The point is that the lay members have what is effectively a casting vote at the end—do they agree or do they not? If the lay members did not agree with MPs on the Standards Committee about what was published in the report and published a dissenting opinion, it would be a very serious matter. I think that that suggests that the power of the lay members is stronger than it would be if they simply had a vote, and I think that we should understand that and reflect it in our discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

I serve on the Standards Committee and had not realised until the controversy of the last few days that the lay members did not have a vote. The reason for that is simply, as the Leader of the House has just said, that it is not the practice of the Committee to take votes. We talk about things at length—sometimes at inordinate length—to achieve a consensus and the lay members participate very fully and vocally. They bring to bear a great deal of experience gained in other walks of life in regulating other professions and they are listened to with great interest by the Members of this House who serve on the Committee. They have been a very useful addition and, as the Leader of the House just said, they are given the opportunity, if they wish to, to issue a dissenting note at any point in time. They have not chosen to do that either in the matter that has just been published or in any other matter. I think the system is working well. They have brought a great deal of extra expertise and we should continue with this and see how it goes.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who expresses that point very straightforwardly and well. I think the House will know that if at any point the lay members of the Standards Committee were to present an opinion to the House which had the effect of dissenting from the decisions of the Committee as a whole, the House would take that very seriously indeed.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Select Committee on Standards adjudicates on individual cases but also has a duty under Standing Order No. 149 to consider any matters relating to the conduct of Members. On 22 March, before any of the current controversy arose, the Committee received a thoughtful paper from lay members on their impressions of their first year on the Committee from January 2013 to January 2014, which was also sent to you, Mr Speaker, and was placed in the Committee’s programme for future discussion. The Committee has already decided to examine the current system for consideration of complaints about Members of Parliament, to consider improvements as required. We will be drawing up detailed terms of reference over the next few weeks, drawing on the lay members’ reflections. The lay members will continue to play a leading role in this work.

The Committee has reported the lay members’ paper to the House and it is available on our website. As the lay members say, it is a matter of regret that the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ recommendations on standards issues have not yet come before the House but the Committee is determined to lead on these issues in the interests of maintaining the integrity of this House.

The Committee does not think it is appropriate to keep a running commentary on its decisions in individual cases, but at our meeting today the Committee authorised me to say that it continues to believe that its individual adjudications are impartial, fair and non-partisan. It is extremely important that those who express opinions on these cases both within the House and outside it should have read closely the careful reasons and evidence-based conclusions set out in each report. The Committee will continue to work closely and co-operatively with the commissioner to reach objective, fair and non-partisan adjudications.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Standards Committee. What he illustrates is, as I said at the conclusion of my response to the urgent question, that this is a matter for this House, and the House does look to the Standards Committee, not least to advise the House on how our system of regulation of Members’ conduct can be as robust as possible. I hope that, in consultation with the Standards Committee and in discussion among the parties, we can ensure that any views that come forward, not least from the lay members, are reflected in changes if necessary.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I first pay tribute to Andrew McDonald, who is retiring as the chief executive of IPSA? I send him my best wishes. I resigned from the Standards Committee when the House authorities and at least one party trashed Elizabeth Filkin, when she was the Commissioner for Standards. According to paragraph 156 of the recent report, the present Commissioner said that the Committee might not agree with one of her conclusions. That should not be a big surprise to anyone. Also, I hope that those who comment on the way in which we run our affairs will recognise that an hon. Member has, in two days, raised questions about what fellow MPs have done while saying that we should not have a running commentary on what we are doing, which is an odd thing for that hon. Member to do. Finally, it would be worth while for the media to read paragraph 14 of the recent report, which contains the accusation, along with paragraphs 28, 29, 32, 39, 49, 56 and 61, so that their reports can reflect what the Committee did, what Members of Parliament did and what the Commissioner actually said. That would help all our discussions.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw the House’s attention to paragraph 156, in which, contrary to the impression that might have been received, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said that the Committee might not reach the same view as her on what she described as a “finely balanced” issue. I encourage Members, the press and others more widely to read the whole report. Only by reading the Commissioner’s report, the appendices and the Committee’s report does one gain a balanced view.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

As a former Leader of the House of Commons, I yield to no one in wanting to protect parliamentary privilege and the independence of the House from external interference, but the truth is that the public think there is one rule for them and another for us. That is an intolerable position for us to find ourselves in, and we have to do something about it. There must be a solution that protects parliamentary privilege and the continuing integrity of the work of the Standards Committee while allowing external regulation of this sort of complaint. Otherwise, frankly, we are not going to be in a credible position.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, while it is clear from past court cases that the expenses system does not constitute parliamentary proceedings, and that parliamentary privilege does not extend to them, other aspects of the regulation of Members’ conduct clearly do. An important practical consideration is that, if the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards did not report to the Standards Committee as a Select Committee of the House and was instead established as an entirely separate and independent entity, parliamentary privilege would not extend to her investigations. That would make it much more difficult to proceed with those investigations and to get them completed, because they would be subject to legal and procedural challenge. The Commissioner has the power to undertake all the investigations required.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is enormously important that the House should maintain its right to regulate itself, because we do so on behalf of the British people, to whom we are democratically accountable in a way in which no bureaucrat can be. It is therefore for the British people that we maintain our rights. May we therefore do one of two things? Either we should have a proper, direct system of recall to allow the electorate to determine these matters, or we should use our powers, as set out on Page 855 of “Erskine May”, that would allow the whole House to come to a decision by returning a decision of the Standards Committee to that Committee and making our own recommendations, which might be more robust.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. In a debate on 12 March 2012, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), agreed with the proposal for the appointment of lay members to the Standards Committee, which was happily approved by consensus. She recognised that the Committee would

“be a Committee of the House, and the Members of Parliament who serve on it will be able to do so first and foremost because they successfully stood for election. Therefore, they are ultimately accountable to their constituents for their actions”.—[Official Report, 12 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 79.]

Indeed, it is an important aspect of this House that we are accountable in that way. It is from that that our fundamental authority here is derived. My hon. Friend has also raised the point about recall. I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech and the future legislative programme, but the House will know that, as indicated in the coalition programme, the Government remain committed to the implementation of a system of recall, and we continue to look forward to introducing proposals in that respect.

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

No one is going to buy the idea that this was all got up by the media. We must recognise the mistakes that have occurred and we must be less complacent. I have noticed that the House of Commons has been far too complacent on previous occasions before putting reforms in place. Does the Leader of the House accept that we need a system of examining our conduct that will satisfy not only ourselves but the public? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has pointed out, the public are not satisfied at the moment. They believe that there are double standards, and we should take that fact on board as soon as possible.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I am in any way complacent about this. It is important for us to be clear—and, as a consequence, for the public to be clear—that any expenses cases that have arisen since May 2010 are dealt with under a wholly independent system. That should be understood, because I fear that the current public debate is relating to the expenses system that existed before that date, rather than taking into account the creation of the independent system that has been in place since then. On the conduct of Members, the Standards Committee has to deal with complaints on a case-by-case basis, and we have to continue to make a judgment as to whether the investigations are robust and the recommended sanctions are proportionate to the nature of the offence. We in this House have a collective responsibility for that. When it comes to the exercise of those sanctions, I find it difficult to contemplate how suspension from the service of the House, for example, could be the responsibility of an external body. It should be the responsibility of the House to impose such sanctions.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The current episode is a product of the old expenses system and would not arise now. Nevertheless, it has increased public concern and there is no doubt that the House needs to respond to that. Does the Leader of the House agree that getting the recall Bill into the Queen’s Speech and pushed forward rapidly will form an important component of the solution?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech at this stage. I simply repeat that we are committed to the introduction of proposals for a recall Bill.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I thought that we had got rid of self-regulation after the expenses scandal, and not before time. Given the doubts about the strength of the recall proposals and in the light of the current saga, what can the Leader of the House say to reassure the public that the reform process, which must be a process without a full stop, has not stalled under this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I would reassure the public by saying that, yes, there is a small number of legacy cases, but we now have a fully independent system that has all the powers it needs to take the necessary steps when anything goes wrong, now and in the future. Echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about the retiring chief executive of IPSA, Andrew McDonald, objectively speaking, IPSA has come a long way in creating a situation that should command greater confidence about expenses.

So far as the regulation of Members’ other conduct is concerned, the public have to look at individual cases—for example, those relating to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and conflicts of interest, or to a Member behaving in a way that brings the House into disrepute—and decide whether the independent Commissioner for Standards has pursued the matter robustly. It is certainly her job to do so, and I hope that Members and the public will agree that she does. When we read the reports following her investigations, they are often very detailed and thorough. The public also have to decide whether the decisions are proportionate. That is a matter of judgment, but I believe that the Standards Committee has put in place robust sanctions in recent cases involving that kind of poor behaviour.

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

Two years ago, the Government introduced a Green Paper on parliamentary privilege, which was considered at length. It led to the introduction of lay members, and a lengthy discussion on whether or not voting rights should be granted to them. The Leader of the House has already explained the situation in that regard, but will he also recognise that it was the Standards Committee that reopened the investigation into a former Member, which led to that Member eventually being charged and sent to jail, therefore showing that the Standards Committee will, without fear or favour, continue to try to uphold the integrity of this House?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right on that latter point. The issue relating to the question of whether lay members should have voting rights on a Select Committee was recently considered and reported on by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. We agreed with it when it said that to do that

“could have unintended consequences: principally that, by explicitly confirming that privilege extends to the Committee on Standards, it could be interpreted to mean that the same extension did not necessarily apply to other committees that include lay members.”

There is a risk that including lay members with voting rights on Select Committees could be held in the courts to have removed from that Committee its access to the exclusive cognisance and parliamentary privilege. That is a risk we do not need to run. The lay members on the Standards Committee have the power they need, but if they have any doubt about that, they should tell us and we should consider and perhaps strengthen their power. If, by offering a dissenting opinion, they have the power to act effectively as a veto on decisions made by the Standards Committee, then they have the power they require.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal has been churned up again. The public will not read the appendices. They have a powerful impression of sleaze in this House, which is damaging, and it will continue until we get rid of this very wasteful, cumbersome and bureaucratic system of expenses and replace it with a simplified system of allowances. That would save £10 million a year, be popular with Members, save a great deal of time and virtually eliminate the chances of fraud. Is it not the case that the time for IPSA has already gone?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman illustrates the nature of the misunderstanding. There is nothing in recent reported cases that implies directly a criticism of IPSA, as they do not relate to expenses since May 2010. If there are issues relating to IPSA, we should look at them in that context, and not judge IPSA by reference to cases that occurred before May 2010.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

In considering an alternative system, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to take proper account of what parliamentary privilege amounts to? Essentially, it is to the effect that nothing said or done in this House can be relied on in any court outside this House. A report by a commissioner to a Committee is part of the proceedings of the House and is therefore covered by privilege. If, on the other hand, it is decided to establish an alternative form, which involves a statute and the creation of a statutory body, that body would be susceptible to any legal action and probably—we can imagine that many cases would be—subject to judicial review, thereby bringing an issue of this kind not only into the public domain but into the responsibility of the civil courts of this country.

[Mr Lansley]

I am not a lawyer and I bow to the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend. I think he is absolutely right about that. From my point of view, it is a very practical question. Let me repeat: if we were in a position in which the commissioner, constituted not as part of the role of the Select Committee and under the Standing Orders of this House but separately, were trying to effect investigations in a similar way while being open to legal and procedural challenges, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend, his job would be made much harder.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have complained many times about the media and the way in which it has operated over the years in relation to Parliament, but I say to Members that there is no point in railing against it on this particular issue. The truth is that the parliamentary system of self-regulation and semi-self-regulation has been on trial in the court of public opinion for a considerable period, and for most of our constituents it has been found wanting. I do not want us suddenly to change all the rules and chase popularity—that would be as foolish as staying put—but surely we must keep under review the operation of the system not only in this House but in the other House, because this is about the whole political system, and, frankly, there is as much dodginess down the other end of the corridor as there might be down this one.

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether I should pursue questions relating to the other House. That is a matter for the Lords rather than for us. The hon. Gentleman makes a point. I do not think I was seeking to blame the media. I think I was saying quite openly that we take it on our own shoulders. If we cannot communicate the facts to our constituents through the media and otherwise, we should take it on our own shoulders that we have failed in that respect. What I do say is that we should be frank and honest with ourselves. We are in transition between scrutiny of expenses as occurred before May 2010, where there are continuing legacy cases, and the new system from May 2010 onwards. The sooner we can resolve any remaining legacy cases, of which I hope there are very few, and move to a system that is based on the legislation brought into effect in May 2010, the better it will be.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I went doorstep canvassing on Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon, and I was telephone canvassing last night. There was one issue of huge concern, which was immigration from the European Union. What we are talking about now did not come up once. May I ask the Leader of the House to give his personal opinion on whether recall would in fact end the matter that we are talking about today? Ultimately, if recall were in place, the British people would decide, and could it be pure recall?

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said, these are issues that are debated by the public, and understandably so. In my experience, the public often want to have a conversation, not least when their Member of Parliament is available, to understand what is going on and why something is happening. We need to explain more effectively the transition through which we are going and the nature of the systems that should give the public greater confidence. As far as a recall Bill is concerned, I fear the House will have to await the publication of the Government’s proposals on that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

When I was a member of a local council, we were always told, when dealing with issues of standards, that it was not what we thought or how we perceived our actions, but how our actions would be perceived by others. In this situation, is there not a danger that all the good work that has been done, particularly on the expenses issue since May 2010, is at risk of being undermined? Is the Leader of the House really not prepared to investigate and look at a different way of doing things?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, as I said in my first response and indeed in response to the shadow Leader of the House and the Chair of the Standards Committee, I am perfectly willing to look at proposals. We must be clear about what the facts are and the situation we are in. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) says that these things risk undermining the system, she should reflect that the decisions that the Standards Committee has been required to make relate to a legacy case from before May 2010. It should not be interpreted as something that can be used to undermine the system of expenses, scrutiny and regulation that has applied since May 2010. To throw that into the argument and say that things must change would be misplaced. That should be judged in its own terms. If there are other ways in which we can further improve the regulation of Members’ conduct more generally, then of course I am willing to discuss it with Members.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I entered this House on a platform for change. No doubt I was assisted by my predecessor’s outrageous expenses. I know that that was under a different system, but knocking on doors in my constituency this weekend, people did raise the expenses issue with me, and they believe that nothing has changed. May I ask the Leader of the House to take the mood not only in this place but in the wider country to make the change that we need?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying but we all—not least my hon. Friend and the other Members who came to this House in May 2010—have a responsibility to explain to the public that things have changed. The system is independently regulated, and under the expenses system that we have had for the past four years and will have in the future there is no sense in which Members of this House are directly engaged in the process of judging other Members. The process is independent. We do not have any say in it; IPSA does.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Do the Leader of the House and the Government not realise that we are living in an austerity-riddled Britain where there have been more than 40% cuts in local government and where more than 1 million people have lost their benefits in the last few years? That is the climate for the people outside and Governments of all kinds should realise that set against that backcloth they cannot keep saying from that Dispatch Box, “We’re going to carry on regardless.” Listen to the tune and the noise outside.

[Mr Lansley]

I and other members of the Government are clear about the nature of the austerity required in public expenditure and across the country because the income of this country reduced by more than 7%, equivalent to £3,000 per household, under the previous Government, so yes, everything has changed. In this Parliament, in relation to the expenses system for Members of Parliament, things have changed. It is more rigorous; it is controlled; it is controlled independently; any complaints or failures are investigated independently; and any enforcement is done independently. This is not about Members of this House or me being complacent because for now and for the future the system has changed.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how many legacy cases from before 2010 remain? The system has changed—I was one of those elected to see fundamental change—but we want the House to be cleaned up and cleared up and to know that those cases are at an end.

[Mr Lansley]

I wish that I could say that they are, but I cannot. The answer may well not be “None” and that such legacy cases remain. I do not know; new issues may be raised, but I hope that they are relatively few. Following the Legg inquiry and others, they ought to have been thoroughly considered and the public should have confidence that the issues that were brought out have been dealt with. I hope that that is the case, but I cannot say that there are no such cases. I think that might be over-optimistic.

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

Can the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister still believes in self-regulation of politicians when he has ended self-regulation of the press?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister believes in effective regulation. I hope that I have explained to the House that the issues relating to self-regulation are very straightforward. In the debate on 12 March 2012, my predecessor as Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House argued by analogy that we were creating something like the General Medical Council or the Bar Council by involving lay members to try to ensure that we did not have self-regulation in the way we had it in the past. We must bear in mind specific issues about the relationship between the regulatory system and the exercise of parliamentary privilege and, in particular, the question of how sanctions that were to be applied in this House can be applied by anybody other than the House itself.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 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 7 April—General debate on justice and home affairs.

Tuesday 8 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday 9 April—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 10 April—Statement on the publication of the 13th report from the Public Administration Select Committee entitled “Caught red-handed: Why we can’t count on Police Recorded Crime statistics”, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The Select Committee statement and the subject for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 11 April—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 April will include:

Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill.

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

Thursday 10 April—Debate on police response to domestic violence.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I know that this Government aspire to shrink the state to pre-war levels and take us back to Victorian times, but do we really have to endure the return of London smogs? The chief medical officer has recognised air pollution as one of the top 10 health risk factors in the country. We all know there is little we can do about sand from the Sahara, but will the Leader of the House tell us what steps the Government will take to tackle the UK’s contribution to this problem?

As the much delayed and barely anticipated Queen’s Speech begins to loom closer, may I ask the Leader of the House about reports that the Government failed to consult the Queen about her most convenient date for the state opening and plumped for 3 June, despite a clash with the Buckingham palace garden party? One would think that with all the spare time this zombie Government have at their disposal, they would at least have been able to put it off for a day, but I have found the reason for their inflexibility—4 June is Eton founders day, so half the Cabinet would be unavailable. Given that the Government are so desperate for business that they have had to announce a general debate on Monday, will the Leader of the House confirm what we all know and admit that Prorogation will come sooner rather than later?

Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister believes that he meets a better class of engaged and talkative shopper at Waitrose. As someone who holds an advice surgery in Asda, may I tell the Prime Minister that his snobbery is out of touch and misplaced?

I do not know whether the Saharan dust cloud is responsible for clogging up the machinery of government, but this week has been remarkable for the sheer scale of the incompetence emerging after this Government’s four years in charge. On Monday, we learned that the Government have got only 3,780 people into their flagship universal credit scheme, which was sold as a way of transforming the lives of people on benefits. That is 0.3% of the 1 million people the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was aiming for by now. So far, £140 million of public money has been written off, each user of the scheme has cost taxpayers an incredible £160,000 and £34 million has been wasted on IT systems that do not work. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House and explain why his Department is in complete and utter chaos, and why he is letting down vulnerable people as a consequence?

The Work and Pensions Committee published a report on Wednesday, which reveals that the bedroom tax is causing disabled people

“severe financial hardship and distress”.

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), the Minister responsible for the tax, claimed that it was saving money, but she has now been forced to admit that it is not saving anything.

The Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), then issued a cynically choreographed announcement that the Liberal Democrats no longer support the bedroom tax. That is odd because, as the bedroom tax has made its way through this House, he has behaved like a true Liberal Democrat: as Liberal Democrat president, he has voted for it; he has abstained on it; and he has voted against it. Will the Leader of the House organise a debate and a vote in this House in Government time so that we can see what on earth the Liberal Democrat president and his party are going to do next?

The National Audit Office delivered a damning verdict this week on the Royal Mail fire sale, which has left the taxpayer short-changed by hundreds of millions of pounds and given a whole new meaning to the phrase “Cable theft”. It is so indefensible that one Conservative MP has described it has described it as a “debacle”, “unethical” and “immoral”. Despite the Prime Minister’s feeble efforts to defend the indefensible yesterday, if someone takes something worth £3.4 billion from us and sells it for £2 billion, it is fairly obvious that we are not getting a good deal.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether a gentleman’s agreement was reached with the so-called long-term investors, who actually cashed in their shares within weeks and made millions. Since the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has refused to answer, will the Leader of the House now tell us who the 16 priority investors selected by the Government are, whether any of them are Tory donors, and whether the Government will publish any correspondence? The country has a right to know.

With all the incompetence this week, it seems appropriate that we had April fool’s day. Some of the fake articles almost fooled me. I almost believed that Piers Morgan was the new press adviser to the Liberal Democrats, and I was taken in by the idea that Alex Salmond would want his face on a new Scottish pound coin; but I could not believe that the Chancellor’s best man made £36 million from the Royal Mail fire sale until I found out that it is actually true. How is that for a mate’s rate?

[Mr Lansley]

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

The hon. Lady accuses us of shrinking the state. What we are doing is trying to live within our means, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition. As it happens, we are taking Government spending back to about its level in 2004; it is nothing like as apocalyptic as she would have us believe. In truth, having inherited the largest deficit of the G8, it is necessary. It is part of what our long-term economic plan will achieve: it will reduce the deficit and, as a consequence, we will be able to have stronger economic growth to create more jobs and live within our means, including by capping the welfare budget.

I note that, having voted for the welfare cap, all we hear—once again—from Labour Members is that they do not believe in it, that they would vote against it and that they are against the measures within it. Frankly, they also now appear to be against universal credit, which will have the most positive characteristics of being able to support those people whose needs are greatest and to provide additional resources, not least to those on low incomes with children. It is being delivered carefully. We are seeing where the issues lie and dealing with them.

For the shadow Leader of the House to castigate the Department for Work and Pensions again this week is astonishing, when one considers that it is presiding over the most far-reaching and positive pension reforms that anybody here has seen in their lifetime, and that it has presided over an increase in employment of 1.3 million people and an increase in private sector employment of 1.7 million people since the election.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the reports on the spare room subsidy over the past week. Interestingly, much of the analysis showed flaws and inaccuracies in the BBC data. Frankly, if the Government had published the data behind the BBC’s announcement and had tried to make arguments on that basis, we would have been castigated. It would be best if it went back and did its numbers again.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Queen’s Speech and the date of Prorogation. As is customary for all Governments, the date of the Queen’s Speech is announced following full consultation with the palace. The date of Prorogation will be announced in due course and will be subject to the progress of business.

On shops, the Prime Minister, like all of us, visits various retailers in his constituency. There was a Waitrose in my constituency, but it got shuffled out of it in the boundary changes before the last election. I tend to get accosted in all the shops I visit, wherever I go, in a very positive fashion.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend do the Tesco price match?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I visit the Tesco in my constituency at Bar Hill. When I visited Tesco as a new Member of Parliament—happily this does not happen these days—I was accosted by a shopper on the grounds that she recognised me. However, she thought that she recognised me as the manager because I was the only person there in a suit, and that I would therefore know where she could find her washing powder. Hey ho, things have got better.

On the issue of smog, we are hardly returning to Victorian times. Crikey, I remember being a boy in the east end and not being able to see the pavement as I walked to school because of the smog in the 1960s. It was, of course, a Conservative Government who introduced the Clean Air Acts to clear up that pollution. The UK meets the EU limits in this regard. However, as we have seen this week, a combination of events can still result in high levels of air pollution. We are investing heavily in measures to reduce emissions, in particular from transport. More than £2 billion of measures have been announced since 2011. Johnson Matthey, which is based next to my constituency and at which many of my constituents work, produces some of the leading catalytic converters. We should be proud of this country’s achievements in producing technology that enables us to reduce emissions. It is important that we achieve that.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Royal Mail sale. I am afraid that she was wrong again. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills responded on Tuesday to the shadow Secretary of State. She has not caught up with that reply to his questions. I will repeat what the Secretary of State said yesterday in response to the question about a gentleman’s agreement, for her benefit and for the benefit of the House:

“More than 500 would-be investors in Royal Mail were approached in the lead-up to the sale. A number of long-term institutional investors who knew the company gave us the confidence to press ahead”

with the initial public offering

“and were some of the larger investors on day one. This is standard practice for any flotation. We did not seek to lock them in as they would have paid less for a stock they could not trade. And there were no meetings between”

Ministers or officials and these investors. He said:

“There was no agreement, gentleman’s or otherwise.”

I note that the hon. Lady has not asked for a debate on some of the most positive things that have happened this week. The Opposition voted against the Finance Bill, but I thought that they might have had the good grace to acknowledge that one of the consequences of this Government’s policies is that the income tax-free personal allowance is going up to £10,000. That will take another 200,000 people out of paying tax altogether, and be worth £705 to some people. Fuel duty is now frozen again, and is 20p per litre lower than it would have been under the previous Labour Government’s escalator plans. This weekend sees the introduction of the employment allowance, which is £2,000 off the cost of national insurance for nearly 1.5 million employers across the country. That will further stimulate the business of this country to create the jobs that give people the greatest confidence and security for the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Leader of the House carefully stopped his business announcement on 28 April with the Second Reading of the hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. I am sure that he and the usual channels would not want to short-change Members of this House or our constituents, so I am asking for a second day’s debate on 29 April. So many people’s lives, homes and livelihoods are affected, so much environment is damaged and there is such a high risk with this project, that the House deserves two days’ debate on Second Reading of this Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I would never short-change the House, but I have announced the business up to and including 28 April, and that is as far as business can be announced at this stage.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the university of Bristol about the high level of mortality among people with learning disabilities. Is he aware of the disappointment of those who attended the NHS conference on Friday about the lack of substance and clarity over funding? May we have that issue clarified, and have the kind of debate that has already happened in another place?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond to the right hon. Gentleman about that, but from my recollection of when I was at that Department, our approach was to protect resources available for learning disabilities through local authorities. That made a big difference at a time when local authorities were otherwise having to make considerable reductions in spending.

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

My right hon. Friend is aware that Manston airport in my constituency is threatened with closure after fewer than four months of a promised two years under its present ownership. Manston is a planned search and rescue facility, and a major diversion field: only this week, a jet destined for Heathrow and running short of fuel had to be diverted to Manston. I am still hopeful that with good will it may be possible to secure a buyer prepared to keep the airport open, and if Manston does close I shall wish to raise the background to the matter in an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that the Government gives consideration to how the predatory disposal of national assets with security implications might be averted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will completely understand and indeed endorse my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of regional airports—in this instance Manston—in his constituency and in other neighbouring constituencies across Kent, and Thanet in particular. As he knows, my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport are well aware of the issue, and in addition to what he said about the desirability of a debate in the House, I know that they will want to keep in touch with him and with the owners and operators out of Manston airport, recognising all the while that it is a commercial matter, but that the importance they attach to regional airports is undiminished.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituent, Miss Perry, of Gracehill in Ballymena, recently received her house insurance premium, which is double what it was last year, and she was told by the insurance company that that is a direct result of the floods that affected England. Although those floods were terrible and awful, and thank God they did not affect Northern Ireland to the same extent, is it appropriate that premiums should be increased by that amount in Northern Ireland, and may we have a debate on the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that by its nature insurance is a pool of risk. The insurer to whom one goes, depending on the parameters of the insurance offer, will sometimes pool risk across very large populations and very big geographical areas. The Government do not interfere with the commercial operation of insurance markets, but the Water Bill, which has just completed its consideration in the House of Lords, will ensure that people can continue to have access to flood insurance. Flood Re, as a reinsurance mechanism to back that up, is very important, but it does not in itself reduce insurance overall. The £10 addition across all insurance premiums is necessary to meet the costs of Flood Re.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

You very kindly granted me a recent debate in Westminster Hall, Mr Speaker, on the tragic death of my late constituent, Eystna Blunnie, and her unborn baby Rose, who were brutally beaten and killed by her ex-partner. This terrible crime left the whole of Harlow in shock. Since then, a domestic homicide review has been carried out and is due to be published soon. It will be anonymised, despite the parents’ wish for their daughter and her child to be named. May we have a statement, and will my right hon. Friend speak urgently to the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary on this issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware of the tragic murder of Eystna Blunnie just days before she was due to give birth to her baby girl Rose in 2012. On behalf of the House, and for myself, I would like to take the opportunity, through my hon. Friend, to offer our condolences to Eystna’s family on their loss.

My hon. Friend will know that in April 2011 the Government placed domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing, so that every local report into a domestic homicide is reviewed and quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. Each review results in a tailored action plan delivered by the area in question to ensure that we learn and act on the lessons of individual tragedies. I understand that a domestic homicide review of this case is under way and will be published by the community safety partnership in coming months. For reasons of data protection, such reviews are anonymised to protect the identity of all involved, including the victims and their families. I will, as my hon. Friend requests, raise the issues he has raised with my right hon. Friends at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

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

Last week, 45 members of staff at Hull’s office of the official receiver were told, after a three-week review, that the office was to close, and that all the jobs would be moved to Leeds in October. That will mean a loss to the economy in Hull of about £1 million, on top of the other cuts we have suffered recently. Hull has been trying very hard to regenerate the city. May we have a debate on why, when we are taking two steps forward, the coalition Government seem to be taking us one step back?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady often comes to the House to offer good news from Hull, the city of culture and renewable energy investment, so I am sorry that on this occasion she feels that there is bad news. I do not know the circumstances in detail. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends to look at the issue she raises and to respond to her, but she will understand that, when we are realising efficiencies in resources, there will sometimes be necessary and inevitable changes in public services.

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

The Leader of the House, as a former Secretary of State for Health, will be aware of the problems facing minor injuries units. Minehead community hospital in my constituency is having problems in recruiting and in improving ambulance response times. Nearly 300 people, who are worried about the future of Minehead’s minor injuries unit, attended a public meeting this week. May we have a statement on all Somerset hospitals that are suffering from the same problem? There seems to be a funding issue at the very highest level.

[Mr Lansley]

The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I completely understand. One of the objectives in devolving commissioning responsibilities to the local level, in my hon. Friend’s area and others across the country, is to allow a practical appreciation of the benefit of recruitment and retention of minor injuries units, because such units reduce demand on accident and emergency units and ambulance services. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends to reply specifically on the issues in Somerset.

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

I do not know whether the Leader of the House has had an opportunity this week to read a report from StreetGames about the lack of physical activity among young people in particular. It precedes a report from the All-Party Commission on Physical Activity, which will be published next week and presented to the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House have a chance to talk to his colleagues in other Departments to establish how the Government can best respond to what is, I am afraid, a crisis?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. I confess that I have not read the whole report, but I did see the press reports, which I found very interesting. I know, because of my former responsibilities, that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and others have been working together to try to stimulate physical activity. I was specifically involved in the Department of Health’s support for the Change4Life sports clubs in secondary schools, which began under the last Government but has been extended to primary schools under this one. That should give young people the opportunity to become involved in games through their schools, but of course it is also vital for us to give them further opportunities by supporting local community clubs.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s success so far in creating extra private sector jobs which have increased the number of people in employment to 30 million. I also salute the Chancellor’s commitment to full employment. May we have a debate about the need for increased productivity to tackle both our need to export more and the cost of living? Productivity is the key, as well as full employment.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. One of the most interesting aspects of recent years is that, notwithstanding assertions—not least by the Labour party—that the flexible labour markets that are so important to our economic prosperity would simply enable employers to lay people off, it is because we have flexible labour markets that employers have felt confident enough to take people on. What we need to do now is build productivity in those markets, and that depends on business investment. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s report forecasts strong prospects for business investment, and I believe that the doubling of the investment allowance that was announced in the Budget will enable it to be a strong element of our future economic prosperity.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Yesterday, following a resolution passed by its city council, Sheffield became the first city in the United Kingdom to support calls for the international recognition of Somaliland. Since 1991, the people of Somaliland have made great progress in establishing a stable country with a freely elected Parliament and an independent judiciary. May we have a debate on how the British Government can do more to use their influence in the international community in order to secure recognition of Somaliland?

[Mr Lansley]

I am, of course, aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He may have an opportunity to raise it with Ministers during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, and also with other Members who may be interested in Somaliland and Somalia, and, in particular, may welcome the progress that Somaliland has made in recent years.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how councils spend taxpayers’ money? Having cut its care budget by £10 million, Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council has just squandered £1.2 million on a failed supermarket bid. Does the Leader of the House agree that there may be a case for an investigation by local district auditors of this squandering of taxpayers’ money?

[Mr Lansley]

It is always important for auditors to ensure that councils get value for taxpayers’ money when they spend it. I entirely share my hon. Friend’s desire to see councils focus on how they can maintain the services that local people need most, and care services are often pre-eminent in that regard. Our better care fund, which begins in the current financial year, will provide £3.8 billion for care through local authorities, but, like the rest of us, those authorities must also find ways in which to save money. The Department for Communities and Local Government has published “50 ways to save”, which explains how responsible authorities can save money while also prioritising front-line services.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Post Office card account is greatly valued by its users on benefits, particularly pensioners, and it is a vital support to the network of post offices across the country, but once again it seems to be under threat. Yesterday the Prime Minister seemed a little nonplussed when asked about this by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), although he promised to look carefully at what she had said. May we have a statement so that pensioners and Post Office workers, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses can be reassured about the long-term future of the Post Office card?

[Mr Lansley]

I thought the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday was very straightforward and clear: there is not a threat to the Post Office card account, and it is simply a question of the negotiation of the future contract.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

At one of the public meetings I regularly hold in my constituency, and indeed again at last night’s Mill Hill Preservation Society meeting, I was asked about step-free access at Mill Hill Broadway, a station on the Thameslink line that is a direct connection to London and is used by many of my elderly and disabled constituents. May we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain how the Government are ensuring that more and more train stations across the country are becoming step-free?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that many Members will rightly share his feeling that we should enable people who have difficulties with access and steps to have step-free access to stations. It is a major task, but happily the scale of Network Rail’s future investment programme is going to enable significant improvements to be made. If he has particular stations in his constituency in mind, I will get in touch with him and make sure my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport respond in relation to Network Rail’s plans.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Treasury has creamed off in excess of £5 billion from the coal industry pension schemes. May we have a debate to discuss how the Government can best invest the miners’ own money and the continuation of the British coal industry—and perhaps the development and expansion of it as well?

[Mr Lansley]

I know the hon. Gentleman was in his place during Energy and Climate Change questions just now when these issues properly were raised. I cannot endorse the point he makes. It is important for people to be aware of the fact that the pension fund for any set of employees is designed to give them the maximum financial security in their old age. It is not intended necessarily to be an investment to be used simply in relation to their existing employment. Considerable risks are associated with that. None the less, these are matters for the trustees of any individual pension fund, but as he has raised these issues I will raise them once again with my hon. Friends at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who are in continuing discussions with the trade unions and the businesses concerned.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

As we heard yesterday, Visteon pensioners have announced that they and Ford have agreed in principle a multi-million pound deal to settle claims for pension losses suffered by former employees. Since my election, I, the Visteon pensioners and the all-party group on Visteon pensioners in their support—and with your co-operation, Mr Speaker, which I am grateful for—have been fighting for justice. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider holding a debate that will enable interested Members to celebrate this great result, thank Ford for finally doing the right thing and, of course, congratulate Visteon pensioners on their dogged determination and, hopefully, delivering the justice they so rightly deserve?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and it allows us further to reinforce the point my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made about paying tribute to those who have campaigned and welcoming what has been offered now by Ford. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend for leading the debate on 12 December last year on these issues. It is something of a novelty to be invited to have a debate not in order to ask for something, but to celebrate that something that has been asked for has been achieved. It leads us into new and happier territory for debates in this House. I cannot immediately promise that, but it is an engaging thought.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Royal Mail sell-off? Notwithstanding the Leader of the House’s earlier remarks, the National Audit Office has disclosed that 12 priority investors sold their shares within weeks for a fast buck. If that is true, we need to know the names of the investors and the full details of the transactions, so that we can work out whether the taxpayer has been ripped off.

[Mr Lansley]

I answered a question from the shadow Leader of the House on that subject earlier. So far as a debate is concerned, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills answered questions fully and effectively—rather more effectively than the shadow Secretary of State—when he made a statement on the matter earlier this week.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The population of the United Kingdom is 62.3 million. If it is not to rise to 70 million, net migration will have to be cut to 40,000 a year. The coalition Government have successfully cut non-EU immigration from 217,000 a year to 140,000, but Migration Watch has predicted this week that 100,000 people will come to our shores annually from the European Union. That means that our population will be heading towards 70 million-plus, and that the Conservatives’ commitment to cut immigration to tens of thousands will not be met. May we have an urgent debate on the Floor of the House about how the Government are going to get their immigration policy back on track?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Government have taken significant steps that have reduced net non-European economic area migration into this country. Additionally, we have taken steps through regulation to reduce the incentives for others across the European Union to come to this country unless they are coming here to work. We will be able to do more, however, not least because of our party’s commitment to the achievement of a further renegotiation in Europe, and there are others across Europe who share our belief that the free movement of labour should relate only to work and not to benefits. As a consequence of such renegotiations, we would be able further to reduce the incentives for people to migrate between countries without being part of a successful economy. On the question of a debate, I remind my hon. Friend that amendments to the Immigration Bill will arrive here in due course from the House of Lords. That might afford an opportunity for debate on these matters.

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

The transition to a low carbon economy provides a huge opportunity for the UK to be a major source of jobs and growth, of which areas such as the north-east very much want their fair share. According to figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, however, investment in clean energy in the UK is due to hit a five-year low this year. May we have a debate to find out why that is happening?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not have the figures in front of me, but my recollection is that 14 major contracts for new energy investment are in prospect over the next 15 years. We are world leaders in offshore wind energy, and we now have some of the greatest prospects for investment in energy, not least as a consequence of the capacity market reforms in the Energy Act 2013, which will give investors the opportunity to come in and make their investments, confident about the nature of the market in the years to come.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has said. Did I just detect a hint that the Leader of the House was encouraging Back Benchers to amend the Immigration Bill to restrict immigration from the European Union? If so, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week to celebrate that fact?

[Mr Lansley]

I think what I said was that, in so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wished to have an opportunity to debate those matters—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) agrees with him on that—the Immigration Bill will take us further in the direction of ensuring that there are no incentives for people to come here without good reasons or without the prospect of work. I am not encouraging amendment to the Bill as such, because a number of useful amendments are being made in the House of Lords. When the Lords amendments come back to this House, however, we will have an opportunity for that debate.

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

Given that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has just confirmed to the House that two of the last three deep mines are to close, and that a seismic survey last week revealed 23 trillion tonnes of coal in 20 seams under the North sea, would it not be opportune to have a debate about the role of coal in a diverse energy supply?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course I cannot promise an immediate debate on that. Securing our energy supply in a manner that enables us to meet our decarbonisation objectives is a proper and continuous source of debate, and I know there will be further debates on it. What I think the Minister of State was saying from the Dispatch Box was that he is thoroughly engaged with the company and the trade unions, and has been for some time, in considering the consequences of the prospective closures.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for regular debates on whether we should stay in or leave the European Union? Will he insist that the Deputy Prime Minister participates in each of those debates? Now that Nigel Farage has, unsurprisingly, twice wiped the floor with the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue, is it not clear that the more people hear the debate and the arguments about whether we should be in or out, the more likely they are to conclude that we should be out? It is equally clear that those who want to stay in are relying on dodgy figures, desperate scaremongering and personal, cheap insults.

[Mr Lansley]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I believe we should have a debate in this country about our future relationship with the European Union, but that we should have it once we have had the opportunity that only a Conservative victory at the next general election would afford us: to have both a renegotiation of our relationship with our partners, with that mandate behind us, and the mandate for a referendum in the next Parliament. That gives force to such a debate. In the absence of a referendum, there is no force to this debate.

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

Ofsted reports today that too many nurseries in England are failing to ensure that children are in a position to learn when they get to primary school. Worse, Sir Michael Wilshaw says that children from the poorest backgrounds are especially badly served, with only a third reaching a good level of pre-school development. May we have a statement on this damning indictment of the Government’s early years record, which is failing?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman characterise these things in that misplaced way. What they are is an endorsement of our determination to improve early years education, not least to enable primary schools across this country to have more teacher-led and education-driven—standards-driven—early years education. In that sense, they are very supportive of what we set out to do. Across the House we should be very clear that, as I know from my former public health responsibilities, whether children are school ready when they first go to school is one of the central measures of long-term prospective outcomes for children. We need to focus on that, and I hope the Ofsted report will enable us to do so.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May I associate myself with calls for a second day to debate the HS2 Bill on Second Reading? May I also ask the Leader of the House for a debate on university technical colleges, which are a tremendous way for young people to gain the industry-specific skills they need? Will he encourage Jaguar Land Rover and JCB to co-sponsor a midlands UTC, so that the midlands and Tamworth remain the home of the manufacturing sector?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that university technical college, and the support of JCB and others for it. I know that we are now talking about some 45 UTCs across the country. What is so compelling about them as a thought is that not only are they focused on giving young people the opportunity to have access to vocational qualifications in an abstract sense, but they are focused in given areas on knowledge of where those skills will be taken up by local employers. That gives tremendous confidence to young people going to UTCs.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that the matters being investigated by Ofsted in certain Birmingham schools are deeply worrying. Will he ensure that the Ofsted and Birmingham reports are published swiftly, and that thereafter there is a swift statement to this House?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right, and Members across the House will share his concerns about the timeliness of the matter. I will, in consultation with my hon. Friends at the Department for Education, ensure that the House is informed as soon as possible, subject of course to the inquiry being carried out thoroughly.

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

The Leader of the House will know that, a couple of days ago, the House agreed, without a Division, a programme motion for the Finance Bill. I had originally thought that that was a good idea, but having listened to him this morning, I think that perhaps another day’s debate would serve to remind the House that the Opposition voted against all of our excellent tax changes—our tax cut for working people and the freezing of fuel duty. An extra day’s debate to remind the British public of that might be a good use of this House’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Well, my hon. Friend tempts me. Two days, as the programme motion specifies, is the right answer for the time being. Of course if we were able to go beyond that, it would allow us to find out what it was specifically that the Labour party objected to that caused it to vote against the Finance Bill. Otherwise, we will have to tell the British public that it is against the increase in the personal tax allowance, against the reduction in corporation tax for businesses and, I am afraid, against the long-term economic plan that is delivering for the people of this country.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In the context of raising the participation age, may we have a debate on whether it is still appropriate for 16 to 18-year-old learners to be funded 22% less than pre-16 learners?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister for Schools has answered that question on a number of occasions. It relates of course to the necessity of managing within budgets for those who are of that age in that sector. As he raises it again, I will ask my hon. Friends to return to him with any additional information that they can give him.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the 50th report of the Public Accounts Committee on the rural broadband programme? It is a totally successful programme, but there are issues with British Telecom, exemplified in my constituency by it leaving out villages such as Glasson Dock in pursuance of attempting to box in the only other operator in the area, Broadband for the Rural North, which is a social enterprise and a not-for-profit organisation.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend might find it useful to note that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 8 April entitled, “Broadband and the north of England” in which he may have an opportunity to expand on some of his important points. It is widely recognised among Members that while we are making tremendous progress on broadband coverage— 10,000 additional homes per week—we are all focused on trying to ensure that people do not get left behind.

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

The Leader of the House might know that I am a Labour/Co-operative Member of Parliament. Did he see last night’s BBC “Newsnight” programme in which there were shocking revelations about the pressure that the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put on the Co-op and the Co-op bank to take certain measures that destabilised the Co-op bank, which has a proud tradition of being a very different bank?

[Mr Lansley]

I did not see that programme, so I cannot comment directly on what the hon. Gentleman alleges. My recollection is that the Treasury Committee is continuing to undertake an inquiry into the Co-operative bank. It is not for me to refer such matters, but he might like to refer any information he has to that Committee.

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

May I add to the call that was made a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for a debate on the UK’s set position in the European Union? Next Tuesday will see the announcement of the winner of the €100,000 “Brexit” prize, which is organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs. We have seen debates on the television and in the think-tanks. It seems bizarre to the public that this House is not debating what life would be like for the UK outside the EU. We should have an urgent debate before the European elections.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend asks for a debate before the European elections, but it seems to me that the European elections are about who we send to the European Parliament. The debate between now and the European parliamentary elections should be about sending Conservative Members of the European Parliament, as we have in the past and will again in the future, who will go there and fight for British interests, vote against measures that are not in this country’s interests and promote competitiveness and deregulation in the European Union. That is what the European parliamentary election is about. At the same time, we might have a further opportunity in the course of the next Session in this House to debate through a private Member’s Bill how the people of this country can have their say in a referendum. That is a critical issue in getting such a debate to happen.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is bidding for foundation trust status so that it can take advantage of the Government’s hospital closure programme and sell off half of Charing Cross and Saint Mary’s hospitals, which the people who pay for the NHS, my constituents, do not want. May we have a debate on NHS land sales, and may we have it before 22 May and the local elections? Since Labour made this an election issue, the decision to close Charing Cross has unaccountably been put back to the week after the poll.

[Mr Lansley]

One might imagine on hearing the hon. Gentleman that foundation trust status had been introduced by this Government when, of course, it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It certainly gives freedoms but, as it happens, it does not give a trust any greater freedom to sell property than it would have as an NHS trust. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s description of the purposes of acquiring foundation trust status does not match up with what Imperial College Healthcare itself believes. Many other trusts, including Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency, have used their freedoms to enable them to invest in additional capital, including new buildings, to improve the quality of the service they provide for patients.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Roslyn Earle has been forced out of her flooded home because her insurance was placed with an Icelandic company that had its licence withdrawn at the point at which she made the claim. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister about how the Government will address such issues and ensure that my constituent can get the payout she thought she had paid for and she clearly deserves?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly raises his constituent’s concerns and I am sure that people share them, but individual cases are not matters that Ministers can engage with directly. We have created a proper framework through the Prudential Regulation Authority for the regulation of institutions that accept deposits or effect insurance contracts. The PRA is fully operationally independent in carrying out those statutory responsibilities, so, if I may, I will ask it to write to my hon. Friend on this matter.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

As part of its bid for part of the £2 billion local growth fund, the Leeds city partnership has produced an excellent video in which it highlights that it is the second largest economy in the UK, with 106,000 businesses, the largest manufacturing base in the UK and eight universities, and that it has the drive, confidence and ambition needed to help rebalance our economy. May we have a debate on the local growth fund to highlight such excellent work aimed at rebuilding our economy?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that issue, which is important. I remember—this is going back 30 years—that when others were bemoaning the loss of manufacturing and economic changes, Leeds simply said that those things were changing and that it would therefore become a city focused on the development of financial services. That process was Leeds-led, not imposed from outside. The point of the Government’s work with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities is to enable exactly that kind of local leadership to define a strategy for each area. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for cities and the constitution, is leading negotiations with all the local enterprise partnerships between now and July with a view to signing a growth deal with each one, including a share of the local growth fund for projects that will start from April of next year. I am confident that the Leeds city region will be prominent in those deals.

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

Last week the European Commission finally approved the Government’s plan to offer tax relief to video games producers in the UK. This relief will provide a huge boost for the industry, especially the many games industries based in Silicon Spa in my constituency. May we have a debate on the contribution of the creative industries to the wider economy?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that one would be useful because it would allow us to highlight exactly what my hon. Friend refers to, which is a great success story for this country, with the creative industries exporting £15.5 billion in 2011—some 8% of total UK service exports—accounting for 1.68 million jobs and more than £70 billion of output: more than 5% of the whole UK economy. It is not just large but highly competitive, and it has a comparative advantage in this country. It is one of the sectors where that is increasingly true, and it is our job to create the framework for it to succeed in the future.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

You, Mr Speaker, will know that the Government Whips Office normally operates like a well-oiled machine, yet on this occasion it appears that the Whips believe that there is no interest in HS2 and Second Reading can be held on just one day, even though 40 Members of Parliament will be affected by HS2, it will cost £50 billion and many Members of the House are both for and against it. Can you pass on to the Government Chief Whip that that is not the case, that many Members of Parliament want to speak both for and against HS2 and that it will require at least two days for Second Reading?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I simply note in passing that the hon. Gentleman may believe that the halcyon days were when he was a member of that Office. I know not.

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell my hon. Friend that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Whips Office is undiminished. The Whips will have heard what he had to say. For my part, I have announced the business up to and including Monday 28 April, and I will announce the business beyond that day in due course.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 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 31 March—Second Reading of the Wales Bill.

Tuesday 1 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday 2 April—Opposition day [unallotted half day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

Thursday 3 April—Statement on the publication of the fourth report from the Work and Pensions Committee on support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, followed by a debate to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, followed by a general debate on civil service reform. The Select Committee statement and subjects for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 4 April—The House will not be sitting.

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

Monday 7 April—General debate on justice and home affairs.

Tuesday 8 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday 9 April—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 10 April—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 11 April—The House will not be sitting.

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

Thursday 3 April—Debate on incapacity benefit migration.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I also take this opportunity to mark the funeral of Tony Benn, which will begin at St Margaret’s church shortly. As we heard in the fulsome tributes last week, Tony Benn was one of the great parliamentarians of our age, and we will miss him.

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the competition authority for listening to the Leader of the Opposition and announcing an inquiry into the big six energy firms? After SSE showed yesterday that it backs the Leader of the Opposition’s plan by freezing its prices, perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us why his party still do not. Will he give us an assurance that, while the investigation is ongoing, consumers will be protected from any more unfair price rises?

We have the Second Reading of the Wales Bill on Monday, which gives further powers to the Welsh Assembly. Given that it wants these new powers as soon as possible, will the Leader of the House confirm when he expects the Bill to reach Committee stage?

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has today published his Bill to abolish the bedroom tax, after the House supported its introduction by 226 votes to one. As there is no time left for private Member’s Bills to have a realistic chance of getting a hearing, will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate this Bill in Government time? After all, the House has expressed a strong view and it is not as if the Government are overly busy with their own legislation.

It seems that this Government are becoming more and more Orwellian. Last week we had beer and gambling for the proles, and this week the Justice Secretary has been forced to defend his ban on prisoners being sent books. The author Philip Pullman has called the change “disgusting” and “vindictive” and one unnamed senior Tory Minister briefed the press that the Justice Secretary

“wins the prize for the Government’s least enlightened Minister”.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether he agrees with the Justice Secretary and his ban on books in prisons?

This week, we have been debating the Chancellor’s missed opportunity Budget. Across the country, people are £1,600 a year worse off, long-term youth unemployment has doubled and according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, energy prices are rising at twice the rate of inflation. The Chancellor called it a Budget for savers, but the OBR revealed that the savings ratio will have halved by 2018. The Chancellor said that it was a Budget for makers, but productivity remains weak and the trade gap has widened. The Chancellor said that it was a Budget for doers, but real wages have fallen by 2.2%. This was a Budget of spin. The Red Book revealed the depth of the Chancellor’s failure and buried in the small print was yet another stealth tax cut for Britain’s biggest banks. Next Tuesday, we will discuss the Finance Bill. On every crucial measure—living standards, growth and debt—the Chancellor has failed.

The Government are fast acquiring a reputation for staggering incompetence. They said they had an economic five-year plan, but it is already running four years late. They said that universal credit would save money, but it is now costing an unbelievable £160,000 per person, and their trebling of tuition fees is drowning students in debt yet bringing in no extra money. What a Government for the Liberal Democrats to prop up. Faust sold his soul to the devil for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures; the Lib Dems have sold their souls for a mess of pottage

[Ms Eagle]

You have—sold your soul for a mess of pottage. [Laughter.]

In the hotly fought race to be the UK’s next EU Commissioner, I am sure that the Leader of the House will be delighted to hear that his odds have dramatically shortened and he is now the clear front-runner. As we get closer to a reshuffle that might ship him off to Europe, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would like to agree with his local Conservative councillor, Mark Howell, who has said that South Cambridgeshire would “love” to have Boris Johnson as its next MP? I for one would miss our exchanges if he did decide to go.

There are still 406 days until the general election, but recently Lord Tebbit said that

“the coalition has…gone past its sell-by date”

and that it is

“beginning to smell a bit“.

Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin have just announced their separation, so I would like to suggest that the Leader of the House gets them in as advisers. Their strategy of “conscious uncoupling” sounds exactly like what this Government are trying to do.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her questions. Today is an opportunity for many Members to say farewell to Tony Benn at St Margaret’s and I was very glad that we were able to do so formally in the House last week. Indeed, many Members were able to do so individually in the Chapel during the course of yesterday evening.

The hon. Lady asked about the big six. The Secretary of State will make a statement to the House immediately after questions, but it is clear that the Government are taking action. In its announcement about the price freeze, SSE said that the Government’s decision to cut the taxes that add to energy bills was the

“principal factor in SSE being able to make this price commitment”.

There is a world of difference between an effort on the part of the Opposition to try to buck the market, as they always want to do, and an effort on the part of this Government to get a competitive market that delivers the greatest possible benefits to consumers. In that context, I was staggered that by voting against the Budget the Opposition voted against measures that would cut energy costs for energy-intensive industries, including in some of the areas that Labour Members represent where jobs depend on the competitiveness of manufacturing. Those same measures will help in the long term to reduce energy bills for consumers in this country.

The Wales Bill will have its Second Reading next week, and I will announce when its Committee stage will be. As it is a constitutional Bill, however, I hope that we will find time, before too long, for it to be considered on the Floor of the House. We are anxious to bring forward the Wales Bill—that is why we have introduced it in this Session—and the debate next week will allow us to hear from the shadow Secretary of State for Wales whether he is in fact, as he appeared to be in the Welsh Grand Committee, against the devolution of powers relating to tax to Wales. This is an astonishing position: the Government are in favour of further devolution to Wales, and the Opposition are against it. They will have to explain themselves.

I agree with the Lord Chancellor in relation to prisons. There is not a ban on books. There is, on the part of the prison authorities and the Ministry of Justice, a determination to act to make sure that security in prisons is maintained. There are libraries in prisons and there is access to books. We have to make sure that the security is appropriate.

I would say that the hon. Lady was attacking the Budget, but her approach was a bit limp to be described as an attack. The Budget is clearly a success. The fact that Labour Members voted against the Budget will, I am afraid, return to haunt them. What happened in the last couple of days has been very curious. When challenged yesterday on whether Labour Members had in fact voted for higher taxes on business, the shadow Chancellor was busy denying it, having the day before voted for exactly that to happen. Then yesterday, they voted for—at least most of them did—the cap on welfare, while at the same time in private the shadow Chief Secretary was busy trying to tell everybody,

“It will be much better if we can say all the changes that the Government has introduced we can reverse”.

So Labour Members are voting against the Budget and denying it, and voting for the cap on welfare and denying that. I do not know where they are coming from or going to; what I do know is that they will have to explain themselves. In particular, they cannot vote against a cap on housing benefit, against the overall cap on the benefits a household can claim and against plans to limit the annual increases in benefits, and at the same time vote overall for the cap.

I hope that we will raise a glass to those who are entering into marriage this weekend—for the first time, those who are entering into same-sex marriages, as well as the no doubt thousands of others who are entering into marriage. I was pleased to note that in 2011, there was an increase in the number of people getting married in this country. I hope that the measures that we have taken on same-sex marriage will help to promote, as my support was intended to do, the lifelong commitment that marriage represents.

On the justice and home affairs debate on Monday week, which I announced in provisional business, I hope the House will welcome the fact that we committed to returning to the House for a further vote. We will do so later this year, before formally applying to rejoin the measures we are seeking to rejoin, following the House’s support for the opt-out. We are grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee for their reports on the matter. The planned debate on 7 April will provide Parliament with an opportunity to debate those issues and the Select Committees’ reports, in order to seek the views of the House, as we have always made clear that we will, prior to any specific measures being rejoined later in the year.

Finally, in the course of the debate yesterday evening between the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the UK Independence party, I was slightly staggered by what Nigel Farage said about Ukraine and Russia. Actually, in the House of Lords yesterday, in response to the statement that was repeated from this House, Lord Pearson of Rannoch also made a remark to the effect that the cause of the crisis was the EU’s relationship with Ukraine, and not Russia’s. I think it is outrageous that UKIP should be behaving as apologists for President Putin. I hope that they will withdraw the comments.

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

Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the point is of the Osmotherly rules? They require the Government to respond formally to Select Committee reports within two months of their publication, or six months at the very latest. It is with great regret that I must tell him that the Public Administration Select Committee has today published a report criticising the Government for failing to respond to our report on the business appointment rules, which are very controversial and not very satisfactory, for 20 months. We published the report in July 2012 but are still waiting for a response. We feel that we have been extraordinarily patient. Does he agree that his Department ought to have a system for chasing Government Departments on behalf of the House to ensure that they respond to Select Committee reports on time?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I see it as part of my role to represent the House in the Government as well as to represent the Government in the House, so I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to respond to the report that the Committee published this morning. The purpose of the Osmotherly rules is to give civil servants guidance on how they should make themselves accountable to the House.

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

In the week when we heard the fantastic news about Siemens bringing 1,000 green jobs to Hull, which comes on the back of the announcement that Hull will be the city of culture in 2017, I was dismayed to learn that Channel 5 is proposing to make a further documentary, based in Hull, about people in the north living on benefits. May we have a debate on responsible documentary making that does not build on stereotypes about the north and that shows the positives, because the north is a thriving place, with people in work and doing very well?

[Mr Lansley]

I certainly agree with the need to accentuate the positive. We need continuously to highlight the fact that, in contrast to the loss of 1 million manufacturing jobs under the previous Government, we are now creating jobs in manufacturing, establishing our competitiveness and seeing inward investment of the type the hon. Lady describes, which is extremely welcome. I hope that the way the local business community, and indeed Hull itself, have got behind local enterprise is something that can be accentuated, rather than the negative stereotypes.

[Mr Heath]

May we have a debate on the vital role of public transport in rural areas? I know that the Government understand that, but I do not think that some local authorities, and certainly some bus companies, do. For instance, First Bus recently decided no longer to route its 267 bus via the village of Rode, which will effectively cut off those who does not have access to a private car from the city of Bath. It is a scandalous state of affairs, and I want something done about it.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I know concerns many Members. Where there is a lack of demand for particular services, it is obviously for local authorities to decide how best to use their grants to support bus services in some of the most rural areas. He rightly raises that point, and I will refer it to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport and seek more details for him.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Today a report on the police’s handling of domestic violence cases has shown appalling failures and some horrifying treatment of victims, yet when we have raised in the House the fact that reports of domestic violence are rising and fewer cases are being passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, those concerns have been dismissed. Now that the Home Secretary has announced to the press that she is taking charge of the police response, will the Leader of the House arrange for her to make a statement to the House on what she will do to address the appalling failures that have taken place on her watch?

[Mr Lansley]

Many Members will have been very concerned by the report Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary published this morning. I certainly was, as one of the four police forces identified as failing to meet the standard required was Cambridgeshire constabulary, which serves my constituency. I will talk with the Home Secretary, but I would not characterise her response in the way the hon. Lady did. I think that the Home Secretary has been foremost in her handling of the matter, for example in the way she has brought forward or strengthened action plans for dealing with violence against women and girls. I will ask her to find an opportunity to update the House by means of a statement of some description before too long.

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

Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer among under-40s, and tomorrow is Wear A Hat day in aid of brain tumour research. We are very fortunate in Harrogate and Knaresborough to have a dynamic local charity called the PPR Foundation founded by a local lady, Pamela Roberts, who does great work raising funds for brain tumour research. Please may we have a debate about how we can raise awareness of the symptoms of brain tumours among the under-40s?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important that my hon. Friend raises the work that PPR and Pamela Roberts are doing, and I am grateful to him for doing so. When I was Secretary of State, I was very aware of the continuing risk of brain tumours, particularly among younger people, and the lack of diagnosis and treatment options. That is one of the reasons we took the decision to invest £150 million in the establishment of proton beam therapy centres. It is a continuing issue. I will of course raise it with my hon. Friends at the Department of Health, but if he is in his place next Tuesday when they respond to questions, he might find a further opportunity to do so.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The police in Northern Ireland have stated that if the National Crime Agency is unable to operate fully in Northern Ireland, that will have a detrimental impact on their ability to keep people safe and combat serious and organised crime. Will the Leader of the House find time to debate this important subject on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will know from past answers at business questions and statements by my right hon. Friends that we regret that a legislative consent motion was not made available on the legislation in order to allow the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland. I hope we can continue to make progress in this direction. I cannot offer time on the Floor of the House for a debate, but I hope there will be further opportunities for us to make progress.

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

The new boss of High Speed 2, Sir David Higgins, astonishingly announced to the Transport Committee that the Second Reading of the HS2 hybrid Bill would be on 29 April. I do not tend to believe that until I hear it from the Leader of the House. It is evident, however, that we are getting closer to the petitioning process, so when will the House provide to those affected by this project details of the physical arrangements for that process? Will he consider waiving the £20 fee, particularly for those who are disabled and OAPs? Will he give some thought as to whether the hybrid Bill Committee ought to visit each of the constituencies affected by the project to take petitions and evidence from constituents who are disabled, elderly, or frightened by the processes of this House?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend is quite right to say that the timing for the Second Reading of the Bill is a matter for the business managers, and I will announce it to the House in due course. Members of the House would always be advised to wait for such an announcement at business questions. She raises an important point. The petitioning period will take place after Second Reading, and I hope that the House and those outside the House will have as much notice as possible about its start date and duration. I am not in a position to provide that information at the moment, but I will speak to the Department for Transport and ensure that the relevant action is taken. The hybrid Bill Committee will be able to make visits outside Westminster, and I am sure that its members will want to acquaint themselves personally with the line of route and areas affected. In addition, the petitioning process will ensure that they obtain a comprehensive view of the issues for those directly and specially affected by the route.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that universities are absolutely a jewel in the crown of our society and essential to the wealth creation and civilisation of our nation? Does he know that Huddersfield university is this year’s university of the year? I know he has got quite a good university in his part of the world. Does he agree that we can only go on for so long paying university staff very poor wages and salaries that have not had an increase that would attract top talent? When can we have a debate about this, because the future of our universities depends on the quality of staff we attract and retain?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is right: I am proud to represent Cambridge university in this House, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). As we all know, universities are central not only to the long-term prospects of students, but to our economic prospects and competitiveness. They are also principal engines for growth in many of the areas in which they are located. They are tremendously important. I am delighted that the coalition Government’s reforms have led to increases in the number of students; to more disadvantaged students and students from black and minority ethnic communities going to university; and to more opportunities as we open up and get rid of the limits on access for students. That is all positive.

Universities are, however, self-governing institutions and the pay they offer staff and their relationships with them are matters that they govern themselves. Although the House will rightly debate university matters from time to time, I hope Members will understand that this is a matter for universities rather than for Government.

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

It is rather a pity that Ofgem has reported the big six to wherever they will go. Smart metering is the way in which we as a nation can address how we use our energy, yet we have not standardised the technology, what we will do with the data or how much it costs. May we have time in the House to discuss the way in which we save energy in this country, and energy security? Smart metering has an enormous role to play: it is very simple to do, it is tax neutral and it will actually help everybody in this country.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I cannot promise a debate, but he might want to seek an Adjournment debate or find another opportunity with colleagues. I hope that more of these important technologies are being put in new homes as they are built. It is also, rightly, a matter for the regulator to ensure that we achieve energy efficiency as part of securing greater progress in carbon reduction and energy security.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the east Lancashire train line? It has no trains on it, which is a bit of a joke. I was promised a statement by the rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), in January, but it has not occurred. Wages in Manchester are considerably higher than those in my constituency and the rail line will give employment opportunities to my constituents and put them in a far better position to gain employment in this tough area in difficult times.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that there has been a Westminster Hall debate on such issues.

[Graham Jones]

Not on the east Lancashire train line.

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps it was not on that issue specifically, in which case I apologise. I will, of course, raise the issue with my colleagues at the Department for Transport, who I know will be anxious to provide the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, the House with information.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have learned today of another reason to dislike the European Union: the idea that it will deprive the Leader of the House of the opportunity to be here is absolutely outrageous. Did he listen to the LBC debate on the EU yesterday and hear the leader of the fourth party in British politics say that only 7% of our laws are made by the European Union? The Deputy Prime Minister quoted the House of Commons Library, but I have spoken to Library staff, who have confirmed that he was referring only to primary legislation. If we take into account the thousands and thousands of statutory instruments, we will see that the actual figure is much higher. Could the Leader of the House arrange a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister next week to clarify that?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all recognise that primary legislation is critical. Although there is an enormous amount of legislation, the question of who makes our primary laws is an issue on which we should focus. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his solicitous remarks. I cannot comment on such issues, because they are matters for the Prime Minister, not for me, happily—it is up to him.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Oh, come on! Should we place a bet?

[Mr Lansley]

No, because I do not particularly approve of gambling. I listened to the debate yesterday and thought that, on the facts, the Deputy Prime Minister had the better of the argument. All the way through, however, I thought to myself that a debate about Europe is all very well, but what the British people want is an in/out referendum. The leader of the UK Independence party cannot deliver it and the Labour party and our Liberal Democrat friends will not deliver it—only the Conservative party will deliver a referendum.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

There is a long-term trend of falling voter turnout among young people. It is good that we will get online voter registration in June, but may we have a statement on the possible introduction of online voting to help to address this big problem?

[Mr Lansley]

We are of course making progress on individual electoral registration, which I hope will allow people in England and Wales to register online for the first time from June. We are putting the maximisation of registration at the heart of our work to improve the electoral system, but we want to make sure that individual electoral registration is working well before we consider any further changes. I have to say that there are concerns about whether e-voting can be made secure from attack and fraud, so although it may be something to consider, it is not a priority for us at present.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the delayed Presumption of Death Act 2013? This month marks the fifth anniversary of Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance, and it is encouraging that further information has emerged following the “Crimewatch” appeal last week. The legislation is of the utmost importance to the families whose loved ones have gone missing, and the delay only serves to compound their anguish.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that Members from across the House are aware of the cases that have caused considerable distress and rightly led to the House approving the Presumption of Death Bill. If I may, I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice about what steps are being taken to bring the Act into force.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This weekend, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will publish its fifth assessment report on the impacts of climate change. Given that the final draft of the report covers disruption to the economy, disruption to water availability, changes to the food supply and adverse health impacts, I am not quite sure which Secretary of State it would be best to get the Leader of the House to ask to make a statement: it could equally be the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, for Health, for Energy and Climate Change, for International Development or for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If there could be a conscious uncoupling between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Farage next week, the Deputy Prime Minister might come to the House to give a statement on the impact report.

[Mr Lansley]

These important issues are taken very seriously across Government. We must take far-reaching steps to mitigate the impacts of climate change. As it happens, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will respond to questions next Thursday, and he is the appropriate lead Minister to whom the hon. Gentleman should direct his questions.

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

With two of the largest brick manufacturing companies in the country based in my constituency, I very much welcome announcements in the Budget to aid energy-intensive industries and the doubling of the annual investment allowance to £500,000. May we have a debate on the measures taken by this Government since they came to office to help private sector businesses expand in line with our long-term economic plan to rebalance our economy?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that businesses, such as the brick manufacturers to which my hon. Friend refers, have benefited considerably from the recovery promoted by this coalition Government. The Budget’s support for their future competitiveness—not only in doubling the annual investment allowance, but in taking steps to ensure that energy-intensive industries can access competitive energy prices—is very important for such key manufacturing businesses.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on a thorny issue that I have raised in the House on numerous occasions? Tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who were born in the Irish Republic during the past 40 or 50 years are denied the right to get a British passport, although many people in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of an Irish passport on the same basis.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will talk to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary about that matter. I cannot promise a debate at this stage, but I will endeavour to secure further replies for the hon. Gentleman.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1206?

[That this House pays tribute to the good work of school crossing patrollers in Harlow; notes that they provide a vital service for Harlow’s school children, are important figures of reassurance for the community, help keep roads safe and speeding to a minimum; is concerned that Essex County Council (ECC) is considering the future of school crossing patrols around Essex; further notes that school crossing patrollers have offered alternative ways to save money; and urges ECC to do everything it can to support school crossing patrols and secure a strong future for them.]

Essex county council is having a conversation about reducing school crossing patrols. May we have a debate on the importance of such patrols? Will the Government consider whether any other budgets could be used, such as the education budget, so that we can support hard-working Harlow lollipop men and women? Will my right hon. Friend raise this matter with other Departments?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be grateful, once again, for his vocal support for interests in his constituency. I shall raise the issue with the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government to see what position they take. He and the House will understand that, important as school crossing patrols are, where they should be provided and the funding for them are matters for the county council. I do not encourage him to think that Ministers will intervene directly, but I am sure that they will give him advice on the effectiveness of school crossing patrols in promoting the safety of children.

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

May we have a statement on the Floor of the House about the Government’s carbon floor price policy? They brought in that tax, and its effect on industry is four times worse than the taxes of our EU competitors. No company has yet received the compensation. The original compensation is not as much as was promised and has been delayed by another two years. May we have a statement to update the House on why the Government are making things so hard for industry, particularly in the north-east?

[Mr Lansley]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk to energy-intensive industries and ask them what they think of the Budget. The answer he will get is that the Budget did absolutely the right things. Time and again, we are hearing the representatives of manufacturers and businesses in this country welcome the Budget. It is a disgrace that the Labour party does not put the interests of business first and that it voted against the Budget.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Small businesses have been crucial to the economic growth and employment growth in my constituency, and they are grateful for the many measures that the Government have implemented to support that employment growth. Is it possible to have a debate in the House on the changes to statutory sick pay, which might have an inadvertent effect on those small businesses?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the abolition of statutory sick pay was recommended in Carol Black and David Frost’s independent review of sickness absence. The Government agreed with them that the system was outdated and that it reduced the incentive to manage sickness absence in the work force. The Government are reinvesting the money that is saved into the new Health and Work Service. That will help small businesses, which often do not have occupational health provision, to manage sickness absence in a more proactive way and to get their employees back to work sooner than under the old system. Frankly, as we all know, that is also in the best interests of the employees. Employees will be able to take advantage of a new tax exemption on medical treatments that are recommended by the service or an employer-arranged occupational health service.

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

Yesterday my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) visited the Scottish Parliament to set out why people in the north-east are keen that the UK stays together. They proved to be just as popular up there as they are down here. Given that the vast majority of people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland want the UK to stay together, may we have a debate in Government time about why we are better together?

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are, as a Union, better together. It is in the interests of Scotland and it is in the interests of the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Happily, we had an opportunity recently to debate Scotland’s place in the Union through the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee. I know that many Members across the House feel that it has become increasingly obvious, not least since the publication of the White Paper by the Scottish Government, that their numbers do not add up and that their arguments do not stack up. The arguments for the Union to stay together are increasingly compelling and will, I hope, be given increased exposure through this House to the people of Scotland.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House have any knowledge of what the process will be for the fundamental review of our flood defences, following the lessons of the last six months? Whatever the process is, will there be a debate on the Floor of the House so that hon. Members can make a contribution to the review?

[Mr Lansley]

I know my hon. Friend agrees that there is much for which we can commend the professional and volunteer services, individuals and communities for their response to the exceptional weather conditions. We know that some aspects of the response and recovery require improvement, and we are committed to reviewing the lessons learned from recent events. Some of those reviews are under way, including reviews of the loss of electricity, the transport disruption at Gatwick and to rail services, and the response of service providers and local authorities. The Department for Communities and Local Government is pursuing a review of the Bellwin scheme. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is conducting an internal operational review of its handling of flood incidents to improve future operations. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Prime Minister has set up a new Cabinet Committee, which he is chairing personally, to oversee the recovery effort and ensure that lessons are learned and action taken across that broad range of issues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Shooting sports are worth £1.6 billion to the economy. They create 70,000 full-time jobs, they take place over two thirds of the countryside, and they account for £250 million and 2.7 million work days being spent on conservation, all from followers of shooting sports. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or a statement on this matter, which brings so much good to our countryside?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know from members of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation what tremendous work they do to promote conservation of the countryside, as well as pursuing a legitimate sport. I cannot promise a debate, but I know that many Members may be interested in the points he raises and he may find support for an Adjournment debate, which would give an opportunity to highlight those benefits.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a parliamentary debate on successful local initiatives to get hard-to-place young people into the world of work? During such a debate, I would be able to highlight and congratulate Tresham college and its deputy principal, Rachel Kay, who organised Experience Kettering, a work experience-matching event last Friday, which more than 60 local young people attended, most of whom have secured work placements with local employers. Is this not just the sort of successful local initiative that we need to encourage around the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. It is tremendously important. I pay tribute to the work that he and so many people across Kettering are clearly putting in to give young people opportunities for work experience and to enter the world of work. Happily, that is something we as a Government are doing as well, including through the 1.6 million apprenticeships already begun under this Government. The fact that youth unemployment is now lower than at the election is tremendously important. The youth claimant count is down by 118,000, long-term youth unemployment is down by 37,000 since last year, and through the youth contract we are giving lots of young people additional opportunities for work experience, which, with the traineeships and apprenticeships, is giving them much more diverse and appropriate routes into the world of work.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Despite the answer that the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), the reality is that energy-intensive industries are detrimentally affected by the coalition’s carbon floor tax. Not a penny of promised compensation has been given to them yet, and the Budget said that something would come over the hill in 2016. May we have a debate now on the impact of this Government’s unilateral carbon floor tax on energy-intensive industries?

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate what I said to the House. It is clear that the steps we are taking recognise that while we are meeting our objectives to deliver on decarbonisation, we must make sure not to do so in a way that discriminates against and disadvantages energy-intensive manufacturers in this country. That is what we are doing and what the Budget does.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

We all appreciate that the timetabling of business in the House is an art more than a science. It is also the case that too much scrutiny of legislation happens in another place, which is a poor reflection on this House. Given the relatively light business expected in the next Session—rather like the present Session in terms of legislation—will my right hon. Friend give some thought to ensuring that more Committee stages are taken on the Floor of the House, not just for constitutional Bills but for the more controversial clauses, which would allow all Members to have their say in properly scrutinising Government legislation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. First, the amount of time spent in scrutiny of legislation in the two Houses is broadly comparable. Secondly, the time spent in scrutinising Bills—not least by allocating two days to Report in this House—is substantially higher in this Parliament than it has been in previous Parliaments, and is providing exactly the opportunity for scrutiny that he seeks. Thirdly, it is a matter of participation by Members. For example, on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, I was staggered that only three Opposition Back Benchers were willing to debate that important Bill—and one of them was a Whip sent to the Back Benches to make up the numbers.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

For the last decade or so, there has been a significant gap in transport and infrastructure spend between London and the English regions—perhaps as much as 15 to 20 times per head. Much of that has been caused by Crossrail 1, which has been very successful but has been responsible for part of that gap. Before we commit money to Crossrail 2, may we have a debate on its relative priority to similar projects in the English regions?

[Mr Lansley]

During the Budget debate, and later this year when the announcement is made on the national infrastructure plan, I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will see our continuing commitment to developing infrastructure across the regions of England, as well as across the United Kingdom as a whole. He will have noted that, as the Prime Minister made clear the other day, we have spent £8 billion on supporting rail and transport infrastructure in the north of England, and we will have an opportunity, ere long, for the House to support the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, which potentially will be the most important project this century for providing access to, and improving, rail infrastructure in the north of England.