Point of Order

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am bound to say that she both looks and sounds very shocked. I hope she will understand when I say that, although she is a very seasoned politician with experience in another Parliament, I have been here a little bit longer and have therefore seen quite a lot of things before and am perhaps not quite as regularly shocked and astonished as she is.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so the hon. Lady understands and the House is aware, on explanatory statements on amendments, the Government have made it clear that we will attach explanatory statements on amendments in relation to any Bills introduced after 1 January. The Immigration Bill was not introduced after 1 January.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House, because that coheres with something I was about to say in any case. There are really two points. First, it is up to Ministers to decide what programming arrangements to put before the House. On 22 October, as the hon. Lady will doubtless recall, the House agreed to a day for Report on this Bill. It is up to Ministers whether to propose any further time. Secondly, on explanatory statements, the House decided that they would not be mandatory. It is indeed up to Ministers, and not to me, whether they are tabled or not. I had been intending in any case to say, and will now do so, that it is my understanding that Ministers will soon be providing such statements as a matter of routine. It would not have applied, as the Leader of the House has explained, in this case. I hope that that is helpful. At any rate, the matter is on the record.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 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 3 February—Second Reading of the Deregulation Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by a debate on a motion relating to energy company charges for payment other than by direct debit. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 5 February—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on the NHS, followed by a debate entitled “Job insecurity and the cost of living”. Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion.

Thursday 6 February—General debate on Scotland’s place in the UK, followed by a general debate on international wildlife crime. The subjects for both debates have been determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 10 February—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Tuesday 11 February—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 12 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 13 February—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 14 February—The House will not be sitting.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing what little Government business there is for next week. An analysis by the House of Commons Library has revealed that this Government spend a third less time debating Government legislation than the previous Government. Is that because they have run out of ideas or because they are too busy arguing among themselves to produce any positive proposals?

The Immigration Bill was once considered the centrepiece of Lynton Crosby’s legislative agenda, but eight months on from the Queen’s Speech the Bill is in disarray. Having been in suspended animation for two months, it returns today with more than 50 amendments tabled at the last minute by a Government running scared of their own mutinous Back Benchers. Almost uniquely, it comes back to the Floor of the House without a second programme motion that would have guaranteed debate on all parts of the Bill. That means that we will not have time to consider crucial issues such as the wrong-headed abolition of first-tier tribunal appeals in immigration cases.

Will the Leader of the House now admit what I and many of his Back Benchers already know: that less than five hours is simply not enough time to debate the amendments to the Bill? Perhaps he could tell us why he has not scheduled more time when there is plenty of spare time next week to ensure that all amendments tabled get a proper hearing in this Chamber? Will he now schedule extra time? Surely he cannot be afraid of his own Back Benchers.

The winter Olympics in Sochi get under way next week and I am looking forward to cheering on our Olympic and Paralympic athletes, but we cannot ignore the homophobic laws that the Russian Government have recently passed and the resulting vicious crackdown. In an attempt to downplay that law, President Putin has assured us that some of his best friends are gay while praising Elton John as an “extraordinary person”. The mayor of Sochi has claimed that there are no gay people in his town at all. Surely when lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are oppressed, assaulted and killed in Russia, it is our duty to stand up for them. Will the Leader of the House outline what the Government will be doing to make our views on the unacceptability of that repression crystal clear to President Putin?

Nearly four years ago, the Chancellor predicted that by now the economy would have grown by 8.4%. This week, we learned that he has achieved 3.3%. Four years ago, the Chancellor promised he would eliminate the deficit by the end of the Parliament. He is now telling us that it will take nearly twice as long. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England pointed out that the “consumer spending boom” that the Chancellor has unleashed is unsustainable and on Monday the Business Secretary broke ranks and warned that with no rebalancing in sight the Government are presiding over the wrong sort of recovery.

Instead of fixating on statistics in a doomed attempt to tell people that they are really better off, should not the Government be promising that there will be no further tax cuts for millionaires? Or will they just admit that under a Tory government all we will get is tax cuts for the few and falling living standards for the many? Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on what on earth the Chancellor could mean by the phrase, “We’re all in this together”?

Recent floods have caused anguish for people up and down the country and the weather forecast means that things looks likely to get worse over the next few days. Last night it emerged that the Somerset Levels, which have been flooded for almost a month, will now get assistance from the military. It comes to something when it takes a PR disaster by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to get the Government finally to do the right thing for the people of Somerset.

The Environment Secretary claims that he has been spending more than ever on flood defences, but total spending on flood protection has fallen by as much as £100 million. The Government have almost halved spending on river maintenance, and it has emerged that a year ago they ignored a report that specifically mentioned the need for dredging in Somerset. He may have been outwitted by badgers moving the goalposts, but even so, may we have a statement from the Environment Secretary about what he plans to do to get a grip on his brief?

Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the England women’s cricket team on their outstanding performance in retaining the Ashes? What does that say about never leaving men to do a woman’s job? I am sure that the Leader of the House will tell us how the Government plan to honour their success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader for her response to the business statement, in particular for giving us notification of the debates next Wednesday so that the House knows them well in advance. I welcome the debate on job insecurity, which no doubt for the Opposition will be led by the shadow Chancellor.

The hon. Lady asked about time spent on legislation. As far as I can see, the amount of time spent debating legislation in this Parliament looks set to be almost the same overall as in the last Parliament—about 3,200 hours, although it is not terribly sensible to measure the quality of legislation by the amount of time spent debating it, not least as many Public Bill Committees have finished early, and we have devoted more time to debate on Bills on the Floor of the House, as distinct from in Committee.

The shadow Leader asked about the Immigration Bill, which we brought back, as we anticipated we would in the programme motion—she said that there was not a programme motion—passed by the House on 22 October. Often, when we table additional programme motions that have the effect of inserting knives into the programme, we are criticised; when I do not bring a programme motion to the House and do not insert knives, the shadow Leader complains. It is perfectly normal to proceed on the basis of the programme motion set at the commencement of debate on a Bill.

The hon. Lady also asked about the winter Olympics. I was not in the House at that moment, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the matter, as indeed did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have made clear to the House the support that we are giving to gay groups and organisations in Russia. I hope that our support for them and for human rights generally is transparent, including arguing for the defence of human rights in Russia.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the floods, which we have discussed in previous business questions in response to questions from my hon. Friends. She and the House will have heard in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday what the Prime Minister said we would be doing about that. I can reiterate that we are spending £2.4 billion in this four-year spending period, which is more than the £2.2 billion spent by the previous Government in the previous four-year period. The partnership funding approach has brought in a further £180 million of external money. That means that more is being spent on flood risk management than ever before.

The hon. Lady also asked about reducing the deficit. I thought that was probably a bit of an own goal on the part of the shadow Leader of the House, when it has become obvious that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has not only demolished Labour’s 50p tax rate policy but has found out the shadow Chancellor for the way he constructed his plan for reducing the deficit. It does not involve reducing the deficit at all—by no more than about a third of what is required—because it leaves out entirely borrowing for investment, which is absurd. The amount of borrowing is the amount of borrowing. We have to reduce the deficit. The Labour Government left us with the largest deficit in the OECD, and they continue not to understand the nature of the economic problems that they created in the past and would create again in the future. More borrowing leads to more taxes, which leads to cutting this country’s economic security, but we need to give people a greater sense of security.

We are only a month into 2014, and I wish that next week’s Opposition day did not reflect the Labour party’s desire to shift the debate away from the economy, which grew by 1.9% in 2013. There are 1.6 million more people employed in the private sector and, according to a Lloyds TSB survey, business confidence is at its strongest since 1994. Inflation has hit its 2% target and the International Monetary Fund has confirmed that Britain is the fastest-growing major European economy. We are pursuing a long-term economic plan that will reduce the deficit, cut taxes, create more jobs, make welfare work, and deliver better schools and skills, but all we have from the Labour party is more taxes, more borrowing and, I am afraid, more debt.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, take the opportunity to make a statement in defence and support of the Queen and the royal family, and the amazingly good value that they provide to the United Kingdom, and the territories and realms? Will he set out that any underfunding is due to a failure of Governments properly to fund the royal family, and dissociate himself from the disrespectful and unwarranted report published by the Public Accounts Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government applaud the way in which the royal household has been managing its affairs more cost-effectively in recent years and securing greater value for money while living, in what are inevitably tough times, in a way that reflects the pressures that exist throughout the public sector and in many organisations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right to establish a new arrangement—my hon. Friend will recall it—that gives more certainty and security for future funding in relation to revenues from the Crown Estate.

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

Four weeks ago, I asked for a statement on the publication of a report on food banks, and last week I asked the same question. Will the Leader of the House get in touch with the Department for Work and Pensions to get it to publish that report? May I suggest that he sends some dogs in, because the Department has had the report for so long that it must be out of date by now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will try, as I always endeavour to do on behalf of Members, to secure a response to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Commuters on the south coast have been struggling with inadequate transport infrastructure for decades. Gosport is the largest town in the UK without a railway, it takes longer to travel on the fast train from Portsmouth to London than it does to go from London to Doncaster, and the A32 and M27 are virtually at gridlock. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the transport infrastructure in the Solent region?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend might like to pursue the broader question of transport links in her area through an Adjournment debate, if she is able to secure one, but I shall of course get a reply from a Transport Minister, which will reflect the fact that we are making the largest investment in this country’s railways since the Victorian era.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the introduction of the bobby tax, which has gone unnoticed by many Members, but will require young people to pay £1,000 to apply to join the police, which will be an insurmountable hurdle for many disadvantaged groups?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall this question being raised previously with the Prime Minister. If I may, I will endeavour to establish what reply the Prime Minister subsequently gave, and ensure that it also reaches the hon. Lady.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

Reputable temporary employment agencies are being undercut by disreputable ones which incorporate travel and subsistence in basic remuneration. The Government are taking action to tackle these agencies, but further, faster action needs to be taken before more reputable agencies go out of business. May we please have a debate on what can be done in this unfortunate circumstance?

[Mr Lansley]

I will see what our hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are able to advise in relation to that. My recollection is that the rules on what is counted in the minimum wage are very clear about these matters, but I will take further advice.

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

Naloxone reverses the effects of opiate overdose but it currently needs to be prescribed. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended that it be made more widely available to trained people such as hostel staff so that they can more effectively intervene in an overdose case. May we therefore have a debate, please, on the limitations created by the Medicines Act, which contains rules that are preventing this ground-breaking work from going further and more lives from being saved?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady asks about the Medicines Act, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health about how that is applied in the circumstances she describes and whether anything can be done to help in the way she seeks.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Of the 144 hours that Parliament has sat this year, 33 hours have been spent on Government Bills. We have an Immigration Bill before the House today and there are nearly 50 pages of amendments on very, very important issues. I urge the Leader of the House to think again and to bring in at this late stage an extra day to debate exceptionally important issues.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that so far in this Session the House has spent just over 500 hours debating Government legislation. I entirely understand the point he makes about Bills having two days on Report, and we have programmed that seven times in instances where that was programmed at the outset. I cannot give another day. We have to make progress with this business. My hon. Friend understands perfectly well, I know, that in order to be confident that the Bill will secure passage—and we must ensure that it does—we wanted to make sure that it was completed now.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on aviation and regional airports in the United Kingdom? With the ongoing work of the Davies commission, the impact that this has on the regions is extremely important. For Northern Ireland the link into long-haul flights and to London is particularly important.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friends from the Department for Transport will be at the Dispatch Box next Thursday, if the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ask them questions relating to that. I know that he and other Members will recall that the potential of regional airports was stressed very much when the interim report of the Airports Commission was published, and we continue to take that very seriously.

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

May I request an early and urgent debate on the role of dredging and regular maintenance of watercourses, both major and minor, in the prevention of flooding? In addition, may we discuss the further delay to the adoption of the sustainable drainage systems regulations? Sustainable drainage has a huge impact on the potential reduction of flooding and the regulations are long overdue.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, although I suspect the House will have opportunities relatively quickly now to debate and discuss the implications of the widespread flooding and, in particular, to receive an update in relation to the very difficult circumstances experienced in Somerset. I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point. I know from my own area the importance of internal drainage boards and the work they do in maintaining drainage. I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend, but may I say that her question is a further reflection of the very important work she does here on behalf of her constituents and others? She is a fine Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and we much appreciate the work she does in this House.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May we have a debate on the Deputy Prime Minister’s national pledge for free hot school meals for infants from September 2014, which of course was pioneered in Hull in 2004 by Labour but axed by the Liberal Democrats? Or is it likely to go the way of all pledges that the Deputy Prime Minister makes?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that when we consider Lords amendments to the Children and Families Bill.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My constituents Mr and Mrs D’Costa-Manuel have been trying to get disability living allowance for their autistic son. Despite the fact that they have lived in this country for over three decades and their son was born here, they have been unsuccessful in the application, because of a short period of time spent in Australia. Will the Leader of the House ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look into the case and make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern for his constituents, but one of the conditions for entitlement to disability living allowance, as he will know, is that a claimant must have been present in the country for two of the past three years. He will understand that all decisions on benefit claims must be made in accordance with the relevant legislation, but if he provides further details I will ask the Department for Work and Pensions to look into the matter.

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

The Prime Minister has curiously contested the fact that child poverty had risen, saying he was not happy

“with the measure. I think we need a better measure.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 859.]

Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time to discuss what the Government propose to do about the escalating problem of child poverty, other than fiddling the figures?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will recall that the Prime Minister said that the data the previous Government used to measure child poverty related to relative poverty and that, on that measure, it has come down. The figures for 2011-12, the latest period for which data are available, show the number of children in relative poverty to be 2.3 million, a fall of 300,000 from 2009-10, when the figure was 2.6 million. The latest data from this Parliament show that the number of children in relative poverty has fallen by 300,000.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on transport? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government, at a time when they are seeking to spend billions of pounds to enable a few trains to run faster, have bizarrely announced that they want to lower the speed limit on certain sections of the M1 motorway, and for reasons other than road safety, which is without precedent? We already have the lowest road speed limits in Europe, and only 8% of travellers choose to travel by rail, so will the Government announce a new initiative—HSM1?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I remind my right hon. Friend that the Government’s investment in rail is intended principally to increase capacity, as demand on the railways has doubled since privatisation. We need more capacity. With regard to speed limits on the M1, I understand that the reduction is to be a temporary measure related to air quality, but I will of course ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill)—my right hon. Friend’s parliamentary neighbour—to respond to him on that point.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House recently arranged for a reply from the Department for Work and Pensions on a matter I raised about delays in personal independence payments, for which I am grateful, but yet again I have had a constituent raise the matter with me. May I again request a debate in Government time so that we can discuss and examine in detail the delays, which are affecting my constituents and many across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We did indeed correspond following his previous question, and that confirmed that the Department does not have a target for completion of personal independence payment claims. It is a new benefit, and we are looking closely at how long the journey to completion of claims takes, against the original estimates. Where there are further opportunities to streamline those processes, we will certainly introduce them.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

May we have a Treasury debate on regional cuts to air passenger duty for entrants to the long-haul market, which would stimulate growth, reduce the burden on the south- east and kick-start the regional economy? I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate what I have said, but the point about regional airports is well taken. Taxes and duties are of course matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will be glad to alert my hon. Friends at the Treasury to the point that my hon. Friend raises.

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

Will the Leader of the House trouble his Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to come to the House to provide a statement on the latest confusion in energy policy? Just last month, he described Ofgem as fit for purpose, but it is widely reported today that ministerial sources have said Ofgem is in the last chance saloon. Given that part of Labour’s policy is to reset the dysfunctional energy market, may we have a statement to help the Secretary of State to catch up with the reality of the system over which he is presiding?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I advise the hon. Gentleman to base questions not simply on press reports, but on facts.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

On the Immigration Bill, will the Leader of the House clarify exactly what percentage of Conservative MPs will follow the Prime Minister today, or is it Liberty Hall on the Government Benches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that I quite understand my hon. Friend’s question. During the course of today, the debate will proceed and votes will take place in the usual way.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) raised with the Prime Minister in the Chamber concerns about British involvement in the bloody assault nearly 30 years ago on the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar. Will the Leader of the House update us on the progress of the consequent inquiry? Will it report next week, and will he arrange for a statement either by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

I regret that I cannot advise the right hon. Gentleman and the House on the timing of the completion of that inquiry, although it is being proceeded with as a matter of urgency. As I have said, for that reason I cannot advise the House about the character of the statement that will then be made.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House early next week to make a statement on the latest idiotic comments from the Council of Europe that benefits levels in this country are too low and should be almost doubled? For how much longer will this Government allow the Council of Europe and unelected pseudo-judges in the European Court of Human Rights to decide things in this country that should be decided by this Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions would welcome the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box on that subject. He might well say, as I do, that it is lunacy for the Council of Europe to suggest that welfare payments need to increase when we paid out £204 billion in benefits and pensions last year alone. Millions of people find that the welfare system in this country provides a valuable and fair safety net when they need it most—not least pensioners, who benefit from a triple lock that now represents the highest share of earnings received by pensioners in their state pension for more than 20 years.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I remember the days when the Leader of the House used to say that there ought preferably to be two full days on Report, or at least a day on which there is no statement. Today, a Thursday, is the one day when there will always be a business statement. It is the shortest day, and the most difficult day on which to have proper debate. Why on earth are we having the whole of the Report stage of the Immigration Bill in one afternoon? Since he has effectively conspired with the Chief Whip to make sure that their colleagues do not get to debate all the amendments, will he congratulate the Speaker on stitching him up like a kipper?

[Mr Lansley]

Under the previous Government—indeed, when the hon. Gentleman was Deputy Leader of the House—it was much less common for Bills to have two days on Report, while it was more common to have programme motions to insert knives into debates. As far as I am concerned, we have allocated enough time: Thursday is a normal sitting day—we start two hours earlier, and we finish two hours earlier—and it is entirely normal for questions, such as the business question, to be asked.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

This week, Charlie Webster is running 250 miles and visiting 40 football clubs to raise funds for Women’s Aid and to encourage football clubs, players and fans to unite in the fight against domestic violence. May we have a debate on utilising the power of sport to tackle domestic violence?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Charlie Webster on taking up that challenge, which will give not only financial support, but tremendous publicity to something that all hon. Members have collectively shown our commitment to, which is to try to reduce domestic violence in all circumstances and to give people a strong sense of its unacceptability.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Today, the Wales Audit Office has published two damning reports on unlawful payments made from public funds to the chief executive of Carmarthenshire county council. One relates to a serious charge about a pension arrangement that enabled that highly paid public official to evade tax. May we have a statement from the Treasury on guidance issued to public bodies across the British state about the moral obligation of senior public officials to pay their due tax, and about penalties for non-compliance?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen what the Wales Audit Office has said about the lawfulness of those payments, and I hope that they are exceptional rather than typical. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been clear about the nature of payments made across the public sector, and he has moved us on from the practices of the past.

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

For 33 years, British lecturers working in Italy have been discriminated against in their employment rights and pay. The Italian Government have ignored six European Court of Justice rulings against them on the issue, but at the end of last year the lecturers, known as the lettori, had some hope when the Italian Foreign and Education Ministers said that they were looking for a solution at last. May we have a statement from the Foreign Office about how that long-running issue might be resolved soon?

[Chris Bryant]

Very good question.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend does indeed ask a very good question, and an interesting one. If I may, rather than detain the House now, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign Office to respond to him. I will be interested in the reply.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating you on your double celebration this week, Mr Speaker—not just an honorary degree from City university but, more importantly, an honorary doctorate from De Montfort university, Leicester, which it was delighted to hand you?

[Keith Vaz]

I have learned well from my hon. Friend.

On the subject of education, may I ask the Leader of the House when we can have an urgent statement from the International Development Secretary about the Government’s decision to withdraw from the Government of Yemen £14 million of funding to help with their education system? We do not want Yemen to become another Syria, and the withdrawal of that funding is causing serious problems.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to respond to the right hon. Gentleman and, if appropriate, to inform the House by means of a statement.

When we spoke earlier this week, Mr Speaker, modesty clearly forbade you from alerting me to those splendid honours.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

This week, Travellers illegally occupied the Chandos recreation ground in my constituency, creating a climate of fear among residents and concern among people using the park legally. Harrow council has taken prompt action to get them evicted. May we have a statement or a debate in Government time about what further action the Government can take to stop that scourge on our society?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall a recent statement from Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government on policy relating to Travellers. They take the issue extremely seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday on policy relating to Gypsies and Travellers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) might well find it helpful to raise the matter then.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that at this very moment, the Icelandic Government and Kaupthing Bank, aided and abetted by the accountants Grant Thornton, are filching hundreds of millions of pounds from the UK taxpayer? May we have an early debate on that? It is losing our taxpayers an enormous sum, and nobody in the Treasury seems to care about it.

[Mr Lansley]

In my experience the Treasury cares a great deal about caring for the money of the people of this country, and Treasury Ministers certainly do. Rather than venture into areas with which I am not entirely familiar, I will ask them to respond to the hon. Gentleman about that issue.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time about regional infrastructure, so that we can spell out again the significance to the far south-west of the Paddington rail link, press for improvements to the franchise arrangement so that we can attract greater private sector investment and tell Network Rail and the Environment Agency to stop dithering, start acting and sort out our flood resilience?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not go on at length, but my hon. Friend and other colleagues from the south-west have—quite rightly—stressed the need for resilience and improvement in connections through the south-west, both road and rail. The Environment Agency is currently considering a number of studies on that rail route, and the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency are considering a number of expediting studies relating to the route from the A30/A303.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on how the Metropolitan police investigates fraud? That will allow Members to contrast the cosy relationship between the Met and big business—whereby it assists private prosecutions in return for a share of the compensation—with the treatment of my constituents who have to report even substantial frauds online to Action Fraud. Its pro forma response is, “It’s not possible for the police to investigate every report they receive.” People only hear from the police now if they are able to progress the investigation further. The rest is silence.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might like to initiate an Adjournment debate on that subject, although I suspect we have just heard the speech.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May we have a debate on why the lobbyist John Murray, chief executive of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance—an organisation totally funded by powerful drug companies—has been allowed to co-author NHS policy on £12 billion of specialised services, including cancer radiotherapy treatment, with James Palmer, clinical director of NHS England?

[Mr Lansley]

Over many years I have known John Murray to be, in personal terms, somebody who is very expert on specialised health care issues. Whoever happened to be party to the authorship of the policy, the responsibility lies within NHS England. Its job is to ensure that it exercises a dispassionate and impartial approach to the making of policy.

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

There has been talk of a debate on infrastructure, but is it not time for a debate on the proper roll-out of broadband? Swathes of the country are having problems, despite billions of pounds of public money, and even in Shoreditch we have problems with connectivity, speeds and not-spots. Is it not time for the Government to hold a debate to consider how to embrace new technology and find better ways of using Government money to support infrastructure for a modern country?

[Mr Lansley]

From memory, that issue has been raised repeatedly during questions and in debates. Indeed, it was raised in questions earlier today, and the hon. Lady will have heard—as I did—that Ministers are pursuing every avenue to ensure that we tackle not-spots, as they are described, and meet the fastest possible timetable for the roll-out of superfast broadband.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 937 on the stealth taxes that energy companies charge the poor and pensioners if they do not pay by direct debit?

That this House notes that 17 energy companies are effectively charging consumers extra for not paying by direct debit; condemns those companies for that practice; further notes that four energy companies offer other payment methods at no extra cost; concludes that many companies are charging excessive fees to consumers using alternate payment methods; and therefore urges Ofgem and the Government to investigate those charges.

He will also be aware of the Backbench Business Committee motion in my name, signed by more than 170 MPs, which calls for action on that issue. Will he urge the Government to make a statement on what they can do to help the poorest in our society?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen the early-day motion and the impressive number of signatures on his Backbench Business Committee motion. I am pleased that the House will have the chance to debate that issue on Tuesday, and the Government will make a statement in the course of that debate.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the scandal of revolving-door pay deals in the NHS following reorganisation? One manager was paid £370,000 despite not leaving the health service at all. Who is responsible for that incompetence?

[Mr Lansley]

The reforms of the NHS have led to 7,500 fewer managers working in the NHS and, from memory, there are about 10,000 additional clinical staff in the NHS. On the managers, it is completely wrong to interpret the fact that positions become redundant and people leave those jobs with the implication that they are not people who, on a personal basis, should fill posts in the NHS in future. It was always clear at the time—I remember it—that there needed to be a substantial number of people who did not leave the service but transferred elsewhere, and that happened. If a small number came back into employment having taken redundancy, that was a product of the Labour contract from 2006, not a consequence of our policy.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

With the encouraging news that the manufacturing sector grew by 0.9% in the past quarter, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on the measures the Government are taking to improve productivity, because progress on that front will lead to higher standards of living for all?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Many people are looking forward positively. My friends at the British Chambers of Commerce reported only this month that manufacturing balances are at an all-time high in terms of positive sentiment, which will lead to business and manufacturing investment. Alongside the steps the Government have taken to support manufacturing, the sector itself, through that investment, looks set to increase productivity and hence competitiveness.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Given the news of the Crown Prosecution Service’s attempted prosecution of three people who took discarded food from a skip at the back of Iceland—the prosecution has now been dropped—may we have a debate in Government time on the absolutely scandalous levels of food waste in this country in which we can ask the Government to get behind the supermarkets’ attempts to reduce it?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Lady raises that with my hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when they next respond to questions, she will find them to be sympathetic, as many hon. Members are, to the idea of reducing food waste. Some retailers have taken significant steps in recent weeks to try to reduce waste.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have a debate jointly with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice on how we can limit the lethal nature of helium canisters, which are generally available on public sale, and which are responsible for a growing number of deaths? Can we work with manufacturers on how to reduce the lethal nature of the helium for those who are so disturbed as to use it?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately promise a debate, but the hon. Lady makes an important point that she might like to pursue by way of an Adjournment debate. Ministers in different Departments will be glad to work together to address the problem she describes.

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

May we have a debate on encouraging business start-ups, and will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Councillor Eva Philips on her “Make Change” initiative, which launches in my constituency tomorrow, and which brings together NatWest, Social Entrepreneurs Unlimited, Social Breakfast and Hot 500 to offer advice and financial support to young people who want to start their own business?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad to take this opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in supporting enterprise in his constituency. If there were an opportunity for a debate, I would welcome one, because we have in excess of 400,000 more businesses in this country. The rate of creation of new businesses is at its highest, I believe, since records began, which bodes well for the future.

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

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has found a worsening shortage of skills hindering UK businesses. The amount that employers spend on training has decreased from £1,680 per employee in 2011 to £1,590 in 2013. May we have a statement on whether that is linked to the £56 billion decline in investment in small and medium-sized enterprises since 2010?

[Mr Lansley]

Part of our long-term economic plan is to ensure that we have better skills to support industry. Bringing people into jobs creates many opportunities for those skills to be related directly to work opportunities—we have the highest level of vacancies. However, we are working continuously to ensure that the appropriateness of skills to employment is improved.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on why action on the Corston review on women in prisons has stalled across Departments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I am wrong, but my memory is that we had a debate on the Corston report in Westminster Hall. I will check on that and see to what extent I can ensure that the relevant Department adds a response on the issues she raises.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister ruled out giving more tax cuts to millionaires. In the interests of balance, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on how much more tax people on incomes of under £10,000 pay as a result of increases in VAT and employees national insurance?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, the Prime Minister rightly stressed the coalition Government’s priority. In tough times, we are ensuring that those with the highest incomes pay a higher proportion of tax, and that low income earners and the lowest paid have their tax reduced by £700. Three million people are out of tax altogether, so those on lower incomes benefit the most from the Government’s tax policies.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must thank the Leader of the House and Back Benchers for their succinctness. Thirty-nine Back Benchers contributed in 34 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which shows what can be done when the pressure is on us.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 27 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on the law on dangerous driving. The subject of the general debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 28 January—Second Reading of the Consumer Rights Bill.

Wednesday 29 January—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on the UNHCR Syrian refugee programme, followed by a debate on teacher qualifications. Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion, and will be followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 30 January—Remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include the following:

Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Deregulation Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 5 February—Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.

Thursday 6 February—A general debate on Scotland’s place in the UK, followed by a general debate on international wildlife crime. The subjects of both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

I should also inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 30 January and 6 February will be as follows:

Thursday 30 January—A debate on the manifesto “The 1001 Critical Days” and early childhood development.

Thursday 6 February—A debate on the third report of the Communities and Local Government Committee, “Community Budgets”, and the Government’s response, followed by a debate on fire sprinkler week.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing yet another agenda that is jam-packed with thrilling Government business. I wonder what on earth he will do with all the endless spare time when the Backbench Business Committee has used up its allocation of 35 days.

I note that the elusive Immigration Bill has made a sudden and dramatic reappearance this morning. After nine weeks of radio silence, we now have an eleventh-hour change to Government business, which The Spectator seems to have managed to find out about before anyone else. I know the Leader of the House is an expert at pausing and rewriting Bills, so the House could be forgiven for thinking the Immigration Bill will look very different when it finally reappears in the Chamber next week. I hear that rebel amendments are already being tabled, and the Government’s highly unusual decision to table the Bill on a Thursday means a maximum of only four and a half hours will be available for that crucial debate. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case, and tell us whether the amendments mean that they have done a behind-the-scenes deal with their rebels? Will he also guarantee that Labour’s important amendments and new clauses on private landlords, on the minimum wage and on abolition of appeals tribunals will have time to be heard in that shortened debate?

Last week the Leader of the House refused to rule out scheduling the Queen’s Speech during pre-election purdah, giving the impression that the Government are still considering ignoring conventions and politicising the Queen’s Speech. Is the Leader of the House finally willing to rule that out, or is there another reason for him being so coy? Some reports have suggested the state opening might be delayed until well into June because the coalition parties have no idea what their legislative programme will be for the final year of this Parliament. Could the Leader of the House tell us what is actually going on? Does he now regret the Government’s rush to legislate for a five-year Parliament, and why did the Government settle on five years as the appropriate length for a fixed term given that it is obvious that they have nothing to do in the final year but fight and fall out?

This feels increasingly like a zombie Government marking time to the next general election. We all know this coalition of convenience is heading rapidly towards an inevitable and messy divorce. After all if they are not fighting each other, they are fighting among themselves. Last week 95 Tory Back Benchers signed a letter demanding that the Prime Minister deliver an impossible veto on all EU legislation. This week they were denounced as “thick” by an unnamed Tory Minister, and The Times claimed to have uncovered a fifth column of Tory MPs who want the Prime Minister to lose the election. On top of that, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), a Treasury Minister, complained that the Tory message was far too negative, confirming what we all know already: the nasty party is well and truly back.

By comparison, the Liberal Democrats have been having a quiet time. The Deputy Prime Minister has been denounced by one of his most eminent colleagues for acting like a mixture of Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell and North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-un rolled into one, and Liberal Democrat peers seem to think the party is in need of a truth and reconciliation process similar to that used in post-apartheid South Africa. It is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has no authority over his own party, so can we have a debate on whether he is capable of helping to run the country?

Not only have this Government run out of ideas for future business, they are running out of ways of hiding their record, too. This week alone we have learned that they are sitting on a report on EU migration because it does not support the nasty caricatures demanded by Lynton Crosby to fit in with his nasty election campaign plans. We have had to correct their misleading figures on flood defence spending. The crime figures have lost their kite mark because they cannot be trusted. This morning the National Audit Office has said the NHS waiting list figures cannot be trusted either, and there is still no sign of the reports on food banks, on garden cities and the risk assessment for Help to Buy. This Government have been ticked off for fiddling the figures more times than the Chancellor has had to amend his plans to balance the books. They have sat on more reports than the Liberal Democrats have sat on fences, and they have flip-flopped so many times that I keep thinking summer has come early—although if I listen to UKIP’s flood warnings I now realise why summer will never come for me.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader for her response. I am sure that the sun shines in many places in this country, contrary to the views of at least one member of UKIP.

It is curious—the shadow Leader asked me last week and the week before to bring forward the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill; this week I have done it and she complains. We are just bringing forward Government business. I explained previously that we have been dealing with other Bills and now we are proceeding with the Immigration Bill. I am afraid she chose rather a bad day to make a speech written in advance saying that the Government lacked ideas for future business when today we are publishing the Consumer Rights Bill and the Deregulation Bill and I have announced that we will debate those two Bills and the Immigration Bill next week. I am afraid that her prior argument has been thoroughly disproved.

The hon. Lady asked about the Queen’s Speech—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

What about the rebel amendments?

[Mr Lansley]

I thought I had answered the point on the Immigration Bill. We have a running commentary from the silent one. Sometimes on days when we have remaining stages we lose time as a consequence of urgent questions or statements, but we will endeavour to do whatever we can to avoid any additional statements beyond the business question next Thursday. Of course, there will be opportunity through the usual channels to discuss the timing of debates. As the Opposition will know, we always attempt to ensure that subjects can be debated properly.

I told the shadow Leader of the House last week that last year I announced the date of the Queen’s Speech on 7 March. We are still in January; we are before the point at which on recent precedent the date of the Queen’s Speech is announced. When I can, I will tell the House the date of the Queen’s Speech. All this speculation is literally nothing more than that.

The shadow Leader of the House will understand that I will not comment on her points about the Liberal Democrats. I do not know whether she was commending Thomas Cromwell. Having read “Wolf Hall” and “Bring Up the Bodies”, we have not reached the point yet at which Thomas Cromwell became the Lord Privy Seal and, speaking as the Lord Privy Seal, I am quite looking forward to that moment for a little potential guidance. It might give me some forewarning of the point at which I might be the subject of what we might term my own Henry VIII clause.

The shadow Leader of the House did not tell us anything much about the recent good news. She might have asked me for a debate on some of the forecasting issues. It is quite interesting. We have heard the IMF forecast that Britain will be the fastest-growing major European economy this year. The OECD forecasts likewise. Business confidence, according to a Lloyds TSB survey this month, has reached its strongest level since January 1994. British Chambers of Commerce referred to manufacturing confidence and intentions being at their highest for several years. This week we had the unemployment data: unemployment is down to 7.1%, down 0.8 points since the election. The employment level is above 30 million. It would have been interesting for the shadow Leader of the House at least to have suggested a debate about forecasting since it contrasts with the forecast of the Leader of the Opposition that our economic plan would lead to the disappearance of a million jobs. On the contrary, we can see that it has led to the success of our economic plan and of enterprise in this country.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about crime stats and NHS waiting data. The crime stats this morning show that crime levels are down to the lowest level for 32 years. The shadow Leader knows perfectly well that in addition to those crime statistics, the British crime survey shows a similar substantial reduction in crime, which shows that our police reforms are working and crime is falling. As for NHS waiting times, she will recall that at the time of the last election 18,458 people had waited over a year for their treatment. Now that number has come down to 218. We have dealt with the people who are waiting the longest. We have reduced by 35,000 the number waiting beyond 18 weeks, and the average time that people wait is still low and stable.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Secretary of State for Transport has not made a statement today on the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment relating to HS2, which many people will find surprising. An important aspect of that judgment pertains to the legislative supremacy of Parliament, which is being carefully examined at the moment. In that context, will the Leader of the House consider giving time to my own Bill, the United Kingdom Parliament (Sovereignty) Bill, in order to resolve those questions?

[Mr Lansley]

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on those cases yesterday. It found unanimously in favour of the Government and rejected the challenges to HS2, both in relation to the strategic environmental assessment directive and on the question whether the Bill process breached the environmental impact assessment directive. So the Government won both those cases.

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

Given that next week’s Back-Bench business has been moved at extremely short notice, will the Leader of the House work closely with the Members affected to ensure that their debates can take place as soon as possible, and perhaps look into giving them time on a day other than a Thursday as compensation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very happy to discuss that matter further with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, although I am sure she is aware that we have made a day available for Back-Bench business each week recently. We are also increasingly adopting the approach of trying to identify occasions on which there is scope for holding a Back-Bench-led debate on other days in the week, even though it is not the principal business on that day. That has been quite successful in recent weeks.

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

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently reported on rural communities and highlighted the importance of bus travel in those areas. May we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on any legislative changes that might be required to allow bus travellers—especially concessionary fare travellers—in rural areas to contribute to the cost of their bus service rather than losing it completely following the withdrawal of the bus subsidy?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer an immediate opportunity for a debate on that subject, although I recognise that it is an important one. We have recently had a more general debate on rural communities, in which my hon. Friend was involved. I will none the less raise the issue with my colleagues at the Department for Transport, in the hope that they will be able to discuss it further with her.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Many people were shocked by the recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which showed that the majority of the people living in poverty in Britain were in working families—6.7 million people. Is it not time we had a debate on the need for real action on low pay, as Labour is proposing, given that, under this Government, employment no longer appears to be a route out of poverty?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all agree that the principal route out of poverty is through work. The number of workless households has gone down to its lowest ever level, and the number of people in work is now above 30 million. People who are in work but low paid are increasingly seeing their tax burden coming down, because the personal tax allowance is now taking some 3 million people out of tax altogether.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know of the importance of rural broadband. May we have a debate on that issue? Also, does he share my surprise that Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council has rejected the Government’s proposed co-funding for broadband in the area, given that Conservative-led Shropshire council has embraced it, helping local residents and businesses?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely concur with my hon. Friend on the importance of rural broadband, and I am surprised by what he says about the attitude of Telford and Wrekin council. In my own constituency and elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, the Connecting Cambridgeshire campaign has a contract and is aiming for 98% superfast broadband coverage by the end of 2015 or early 2016. Such coverage is tremendously important in rural areas, particularly for supporting the new enterprises that are setting up there.

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

Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House to make a statement on when the Government would publish their report on food banks. Given the fact that it has still not been published, may we have an urgent statement to tell us when the report will be made public?

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I do not have a publication date, but I will, of course, speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and if he can update the House, I am sure he will.

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

May we have a debate on the housing targets used by local authorities? The housing targets used by Leeds city council are being challenged, including by Dr Rachael Unsworth at Leeds university and Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development. May we debate whether the targets are accurate before we see huge swathes of north Leeds and Wharfedale being built on?

[Mr Lansley]

What my hon. Friend says is interesting. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to look at it. One of the essential things for local authorities to do, as part of the national planning policy framework, is to ensure that they meet five years’ demand for housing in their areas. So what that demand is and what the targets ought to be are important questions, but of course, they can be challenged on appeal to the inspectorate if someone thinks that a local plan is inaccurate.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Just before the Offender Rehabilitation Bill was considered on Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), met the Liberal Democrat group and warned them not to vote for any piloting of the procedures because they were too far advanced. At the end of last week, he slipped out a written statement to say that the timeline has been set back two months. May we now have a debate in Government time on the Government’s lack of candour and complete incompetence with regard to the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

The House has just debated the Offender Rehabilitation Bill and these issues were discussed. My recollection is that, in particular, the issue was not a lack of time, but that the related piloting—for example, in Peterborough—has illustrated the benefits of the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time in the programme for a discussion on provision for young people with dyslexia? The Government have gone a long way, and we are publishing a new code of practice, but the issue is how things are working in schools and getting early intervention to help those with dyslexia to be able to perform adequately in schools.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these are important issues. Indeed, there are often opportunities—I hope that they will continue—through the Backbench Business Committee to discuss them. Of course, in the wider sense for children with special educational needs, the Children and Families Bill contains important new provisions. It is in the House of Lords now, so to that extent, we have debated it here. Some amendments might come from the House of Lords in due course that will afford an opportunity to debate some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises, and I hope that he has that chance.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the complete failure of Capita in relation to personal independence payments? Many people have been waiting six or seven months for their assessments to get from Capita to the Department for Work and Pensions. The DWP helpline for MPs is in despair. The Capita website, contact e-mail and telephone numbers do not respond. What is happening to desperately ill people is awful. The Secretary of State has said that his policies are about changing lives, not just saving money. They are changing lives, but not for the better, and he is certainly saving a lot of money from desperately ill people.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer an immediate debate on that, and the hon. Lady will know that questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are—

[Mrs Moon]

I asked a question during DWP questions.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, exactly. Therefore, the next questions are some way off. To be as helpful as I can to the hon. Lady, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to address her specifically on the points that she raises.

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

Yesterday, we had a debate in Westminster Hall about the situation in Somerset. People are now looking at setting up gold command, which is one stage below a major incident. Surely, the time has come to have a debate in the House on the Environment Agency and flooding throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot go on, year on year, having a situation where emergency services are stretched and local councils are getting more stretched, yet we cannot get them to dredge rivers and live up to the job that they should be doing.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly raised this issue last week, and I was glad that the business gave him the opportunity to raise it in Westminster Hall, as he says. I cannot offer him an immediate prospect of a debate, but I know that we will discuss this matter with the Backbench Business Committee, because, as I said last week, Members from across the House will want to debate it in the light of the exceptional weather conditions. I should say that in many cases they will want to do so not least to express their appreciation of the success of the Environment Agency and emergency services, as well as to identify where more needs to be done.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on the operation of, and criteria for inclusion in, the rural fuel rebate scheme, because, amazingly, despite Northern Ireland having the highest petrol and diesel prices in the UK—prices are the highest in Europe in some parts of the Province—no part of Northern Ireland qualifies under the scheme? It would be worth exploring that, if the Leader of the House could see his way to having a debate on the matter.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately promise a debate, but the right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue. I know that my Treasury colleagues will always be willing to discuss it with him, and I will encourage them to respond to him on that subject.

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

As the number of people in employment rises and the number of claimants falls—such progress has been made in my constituency that it now has just 95 young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance—may we have a debate about how we further target the benefits system to support people in getting back into work?

[Mr Lansley]

I would welcome such a debate, and my hon. Friend is right to seek one. It would give us an opportunity to examine how the Work programme has, according to industry figures, brought 444,000 people into work; to look at how the youth claimant count has been reduced by 114,000 since the election; and to celebrate the one and two-thirds million more private sector jobs created in this country since the last election.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

We warned what the consequences would be of cutting more than 10,000 front-line police officers. Today’s figures show that theft was up in 24 of the 43 force areas, shoplifting was up in 28 and sexual crime was up in 40. Given those disturbing trends, taken together with today’s revelations that last year half a million crimes were screened out and not even investigated, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the growing consequences of the Government’s actions, as the thin blue line is stretched ever thinner?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is just in denial, as his party so often is on so many subjects. Both the crime statistics and the crime survey show that crime has fallen by more than 10% under this Government, which makes us the safest we have been for decades. It shows that the Government’s reforms are working and that police forces are rising to the challenge of delivering savings while reducing crime.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Empire, Golcar, Hand Drawn Monkey, Magic Rock, Milltown, Nook, Riverhead and Summer Wine are all microbreweries in my constituency. They employ dozens of people, and export to Australia and eastern Europe. We had a debate earlier this week on pubcos, but may we please have a debate on the role that microbreweries are playing in our booming food and drink exports?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be a joy to have a further debate; it seems that the Opposition day debate on pubcos the other day, for which we are grateful, has not assuaged the thirst for such discussion in this House. My hon. Friend makes a good point, because microbreweries are doing a fantastic thing in bringing innovation into an industry and really responding to customer preference. It is now such a joy for beer drinkers as compared with the time when I was but a lad; I recall taking Watneys Red Barrel to a party, but that was a day in the past.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome today’s short Backbench Business Committee debate on Holocaust memorial day. However, given continuing holocaust denial and increasing anti-Semitic discourse, including the Anelka incident, may we have a debate on these issues in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

The House is grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling a debate this afternoon. As I said last week, the recent European report highlighting the number of anti-Semitic incidents across Europe does give rise for concern, and it is something that we should continue to debate. However, although one incident is one too many, we can take some comfort from the fact that there is a relatively low number of such incidents in this country. That means that communities here can feel relatively confident compared with those in other European countries.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I have been contacted by several constituents who were the victims of theft, so will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on whether the Government will consider the introduction of digital monitoring of blue badges as part of a drive to tackle misuse and assist genuine users?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will recall that the Disabled Persons' Parking Badges Act 2013, which was piloted through this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), secured its Royal Assent about this time last year. The reforms to the blue badge scheme are now delivering some comprehensive changes, which will include a national shared database of all blue badge holders. That will enable enforcement officers anywhere in the country to use handheld devices to check badge details in real time against that nationwide database. I hope that will help in the issues my hon. Friend raises.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Now that both coalition parties are in favour of new nuclear and offshore wind, may we have a debate in Government time on transmission and the national grid, so that the new connections can be looked at fairly and objectively when we are considering subsea, underground and overground proposals? That is a serious issue to which the Government have not given much time or attention.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, it is an important matter. It should be noted that this Government are now making progress on the new nuclear build. About 10 years ago, the Trade and Industry Committee, of which I was a member, asked the previous Government for such a debate, but it did not happen. They kept saying then that they were keeping the door open, but skills, opportunity and investment were leaving the country. Now they are coming back. It is an important matter, especially at Wylfa in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I will, if I may, discuss it with my colleagues. Of course the grid and planning are partly an issue for the Welsh Assembly Government as well. None the less, I will raise it because I know how important it is to his constituents.

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

May we have a debate on the state of Britain’s roads because they appear to be getting worse, especially in Lancashire and the Ribble Valley? Annually, local authorities pay £30 million in compensation to motorists, so motorists themselves end up paying £2.8 billion in repairs because of the number of potholes and craters in the roads. A debate would enable us to focus on how much money is spent on the roads and to ensure that the money is spent equally in counties such as Lancashire, including in rural areas such as the Ribble Valley.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that this Government have made available additional resources to assist highways authorities to deal with potholes, and I hope that that is making a difference. None the less, it is a constant effort, not least because of some of the exceptional weather conditions we have experienced this winter and the previous one.

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

The Leader of the House may recall that during the recent industrial dispute at the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, the Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, described as a rogue the then Unite union convenor, Stevie Dean. Since then, and following a police investigation, Mr Dean has been cleared of all the allegations levelled against him. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to come back to the Dispatch Box and apologise to Mr Dean and his family?

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps in the first instance the Labour party would like to publish its own internal report relating to the events in Falkirk and then we will see where we go from there.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Tomorrow, stakeholders from across the south-west are meeting to discuss once again the future of the A303. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a statement to confirm that the work will expedite a solution as quickly as possible, take advantage of the studies that have been undertaken over the past 20 years and ensure that Stonehenge and the stretch of the A303 around it will not be forgotten or decoupled from the work?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter with me again. As he says, a meeting is due to take place tomorrow with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to consider the issue. I can tell him—I will ask my colleagues to follow up on this with him and other interested Members—that we recognise the need to find solutions to the issues on the A303/A30/A358 corridor. We commit to identifying and funding solutions in the future and to ensure that we build on previous and recent work, including that done by Somerset county council and others, rather than starting from scratch.

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

Earlier this year, my local former Scottish National party MSP, Mr Bill Walker, was convicted of 23 counts of domestic abuse and one charge of breaking a frying pan over his stepdaughter’s head. He was sentenced to the maximum sentence available, which was only one year, so the Scottish Parliament did not have the power automatically to expel him. Will the Leader of the House ask the Cabinet Office to consider the outdated rule that someone must have a jail sentence of one year and one day before they can be disqualified from this place or any of the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, these are matters for me. As regards this House, I would want to proceed on the basis of an understanding of consensus and I will be glad to discuss the question with colleagues, the shadow Leader of the House and others. In this House, we have already seen—I hope that this would be reflected in other Parliaments—that when Members are convicted of serious offences, even if they have not necessarily been given a sentence of more than 12 months, they have either resigned from the House or action has been taken against them on a recommendation from the Standards Committee.

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

Wolverhampton central youth theatre is one of many organisations that will have its funding cut if Wolverhampton council moves £1.6 million from the voluntary sector budget. Given that last night Wolverhampton council deferred the decision, may we use this pause to have a debate on the importance of voluntary sector organisations and wider civil society?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point for his constituents, but there is a general point, too. In many cases, local authorities are making effective decisions about how they can reduce costs, increase efficiencies and maintain services for their public, but they should never take the easy route out. They should always look for the opportunity to reduce their costs while maintaining their ability to support the services and expenditure that are of most importance to their constituents.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

There was a deeply disturbing report on the “Today” programme this morning concerning Oakwood prison in Staffordshire, the largest prison in the UK. In my constituency of Wrexham, an even bigger prison is planned by the Government but many major decisions concerning it have not yet been made. May we please have a debate so that we can consider prison capacity and the effectiveness of Oakwood prison and so that we know what the Government have planned for my constituency?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision made by this Government to establish a large new prison in Wrexham. On the specific question of HMP Oakwood, he knows that the incident there was resolved successfully in the early hours of 6 January. I cannot comment further on that particular issue, but he will know from what my colleagues have said that large category C prisons elsewhere in the prison estate often operate very successfully. The number and type of incidents Oakwood has experienced over the past six months are not notably different from those experienced by other such prisons.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Tomorrow, as the Leader of the House travels to Corby to support the excellent Conservative candidate, Tom Pursglove, he will have to drive through my constituency. As he does, will he reflect on the fact that when Labour left power 2,757 people were unemployed and now fewer than 2,000 are unemployed? Would it be possible to ensure that there is not a debate on the economy next week so that the Opposition are not embarrassed?

[Mr Lansley]

I often drive through my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I look forward to doing so to visit Corby in east Northamptonshire tomorrow evening. Of course, the Opposition had an Opposition day available to them next week but chose not to debate the recent economic good news, so, as he correctly observes, they are not willing or keen to be embarrassed.

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

May we have a statement on what plans the Government have to support the north-east economy, in particular? Yesterday we saw that the north-east still has the highest level of unemployment in the country, with too many young people out of work and rising levels of long-term unemployment. I wish Portsmouth well, but who in Government is going to get to grips with the challenge that we face in the north-east?

[Hon. Members]

They do not care.

[Mr Lansley]

I hear the sedentary comments from the Opposition. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do care. That is why we are pursuing a long-term economic plan which, among its many benefits, is getting many more people into work, with 1.68 million private sector jobs. We were left with an enormous deficit and we have had to deal with that. We said at the outset that that would necessitate a reduction in public sector jobs. Labour Members and the Leader of the Opposition said, “It will never happen. Jobs will be lost in the public sector but the private sector could not possibly create equivalent numbers of jobs.” There are now four private sector jobs for every public sector job lost. The hon. Lady and other north-east MPs should be on their feet extolling the successes in the north-east. This week, Nissan, with a new Qashqai model coming off its production lines, is a fantastic example of the potential in this country and in the north-east to produce world-beating manufacturing.

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

Many local residents and members of Medway council have raised concerns about the proposed closure of A block, based at Medway hospital and run by Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, which provides in-patient mental health care facilities. I know that the Government have done a lot on the provision of mental health care facilities across the country, but may I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on such provision across the country, looking at levels of in-patient and community-based treatment?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend asks his question at a good moment, not least because earlier this week my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published the Government’s update of the mental health strategy, with some important further commitments on the availability of mental health services, especially the ability for services to become more seamless at the point at which young people are treated as adults, which makes a big difference. My hon. Friend raises an important local point. When the Secretary of State for Health decided on 20 November last year to support the Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s recommendation, he made it clear that the matter should be allowed to proceed as soon as possible. Knowing my hon. Friend’s local hospitals, I think that, for example, there is a very good in-patient unit at Darent Valley. I hope his constituents will appreciate that there continue to be high-quality in-patient services locally.

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

Today The Daily Telegraph reports the plight of my former constituent, Mrs Afsana Lachaux, who is stranded in Dubai having being abused by her former husband and who is now threatened with jail by the Dubai police and authorities. I have bid for an Adjournment debate on this matter, and I am seeking a meeting with the relevant Minister at the Foreign Office. In the interim, may we have a statement from the Foreign Office on the outcome of the representations that have been made by our consular officials in Dubai to Foreign Office staff?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman might have some success in his quest for a debate, because this is clearly a distressing matter for his constituents and their friends and families. I will of course talk to my ministerial colleague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will be in contact with the hon. Gentleman. I hope, too, that if there are wider issues the Minister will take whatever opportunity he can to update the House.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Farmers in Staffordshire and other parts of the country who have seen their pedigree herds slaughtered as a result of bovine TB face a double loss: the loss of their herds, into which they put so much effort, and a loss of compensation, because they are compensated at an average level. May we have a debate on fair compensation for farmers who lose their cattle as a result of this terrible disease?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that we are doing everything we can to try to reduce the high incidence of bovine TB. This is a very important issue and whenever we debate the mechanisms of the badger cull we should never forget that it meets a very important purpose. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about compensation. I will raise it with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask him to respond to my hon. Friend.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

For some time I have been working with the pensions Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—and the Yorkshire Post to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the Carrington Wire pension fund saga, which affects hundreds of pensioners in Yorkshire, including in my constituency. The case is important because it represents the way in which the Government protect UK pension holders. I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that our laws and regulations properly protect the public, but the longer this particular matter takes to be resolved, the less likely that appears to be the case. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we get the opportunity to debate the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, talk to my hon. Friend the pensions Minister so that he can update me. I cannot promise a debate, but I will, of course, make sure that if there is anything we can do to assist in the matter that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised, we will try to do so.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Could we have a long debate in Government time on jobs and growth? It would allow hon. Members on both sides of the House to highlight some of the remarkable statistics in the current numbers, such as the fact that workless households are at a record low, that the number of children in absolute poverty is at a record low, that the number of professional science and technical jobs are growing very fast, that long-term unemployment is coming down and, above all, that, unlike the previous Government, this Government are creating British jobs for British workers.

[Mr Lansley]

I thought that was an excellent application for a debate and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for it. Without repeating what she has rightly said is the basis for such a debate, it would, if we could find time for it, afford an opportunity to take particular note of her last point that, under the previous Government, in the five years up to the last general election the number of British people in a job dropped by 413,000, while the number of foreign workers in employment in this country went up by 736,000. By contrast, in the three years after the election, the number of British people in a job has risen by 538,000 and the number of foreign workers by 247,000. That trend is, if anything, accelerating. According to the most recent figures from 2012-13, 90% of jobs went to UK nationals, meaning 348,000 more British people in work and 26,000 additional foreign workers.

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

For more than two years I have been meeting Ministers and industry experts to look in detail at the issue of internet trolling. Just this week we have seen further evidence of the inadequate response of social media sites to online racist and misogynist abuse. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on internet trolling so that Parliament can send a message to Facebook, Twitter and others that we are watching what they are doing and that thus far we are not impressed?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately offer a debate, but a lot of people have rightly been concerned about the character of internet trolling. I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The House has had some opportunities to discuss the issue. We have focused in the past on the danger to and exploitation of children, but there are wider issues such as balancing freedom of speech with the general legal basis on which people have a right not to be abused.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 974?

[That this House recognises that Harlow Mecca Bingo is one of the biggest bingo clubs in the country, with 54,000 members; notes that their staff are second-to-none; further notes that Harlow Mecca Bingo provides an important role in Harlow’s community; acknowledges that despite being recognised as a soft form of gambling that plays an important social role within many local communities in the UK, bingo is subject to a gross profits tax of 20 per cent, as opposed to the 15 per cent charged on other forms of gambling; and therefore urges the Government to reduce this tax to 15 per cent in line with other forms of gambling, to ensure that Harlow Mecca Bingo continues to have a strong future.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Harlow Mecca Bingo club has 54,000 members, that 100,000 people have walked though its doors over the past year and that it has 10,000 active members? Will he do what he can and arrange a debate on the “boost bingo” campaign, so that we can secure a future for bingo clubs such as that in Harlow and ensure that they are on a level playing field and not taxed at 20% when other forms of gambling are taxed at 15%?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen early-day motion 974, in which my hon. Friend makes a point about Harlow Mecca Bingo, whose fame has spread far and wide. I suspect that there are probably even people in South Cambridgeshire who go to Harlow to enjoy bingo. Before the 1997 general election, when you and I first entered the House, Mr Speaker, the Bingo Association asked me whether I wanted to call the numbers at a bingo club in my constituency. Unfortunately, there was no bingo club in my constituency, so I lost out on that one, and my hon. Friend therefore has the advantage on me. I note that the fame of Harlow Mecca Bingo is so great that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) has signed the early-day motion, so the campaign is a national one. The question of duty is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

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

Government spokesmen now say that they intend to increase economic security for the average household. May we debate that so that I can answer my constituents who are wondering which is the better indicator— 25 people off the claimant count, or the fact that a place such as Birmingham, Selly Oak is now in the top 20% of constituencies for unemployment?

[Mr Lansley]

It is very important to give people a greater sense of security and peace of mind, and that is what we have set out to do. The fact that the number of households in which nobody is in work is at a record low makes an enormous difference. The fact that the latest data show that inflation is at 2%—it has come down to its target level—also gives people a sense of security. The fact that we are dealing with the deficit is not just some debate at a global or national level, but a practical matter: if we stick to the long-term economic plan to bring down the deficit, that will increasingly allow us to do what we have done with the money available, which is to relieve the tax burden, not least on the low-paid.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

On Monday, we had the welcome news that Harrow council and the Department for Education are conducting a feasibility study with the aim of putting a brand new Hindu free school on Whitchurch playing fields in my constituency. May we have an urgent debate on the principle of religious schools, particularly in relation to their impact on Britain, so that Britain’s 1.6 million Hindus have the right to provide an education of their choice for their children?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I wish him well with the plans that his constituents are putting together. As he will know, our view is that there is a valuable long-standing tradition of faith schools in this country, and we support the contribution that they make. They are often high-performing schools that are popular with parents, and many of them are therefore over-subscribed. Two Hindu free schools have thus far been established—the Krishna Avanti primary school in Leicester and the Avanti House school in London, which opened in 2012. I hope that this continuing trend of support for faith schools will be sustained.

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

The Leader of the House has rightly commended the work of the emergency services in tackling flooding, and I particularly draw attention to the fire service. My local firefighters are somewhat bemused that they do not have a statutory duty to attend flooding incidents. May we therefore have a debate on the implications of there being no statutory duty, so that we can ask the fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), to explain why that is still the position?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly raise that point with the Minister with responsibility for fire services, and he may like to reply to the hon. Lady. I have to say that I do not think that fire services would generally regard themselves as in any way constrained by their statutory responsibilities in attending whenever they felt there was a public need for them to do so.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Last week, Thales UK won a £120 million export order to Indonesia, securing important aerospace jobs. That is just one example of the importance of the Government strategy to rebalance the economy by supporting manufacturing, promoting apprenticeships and exporting to high-growth countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strategy’s most important consequences is the opportunity for young people, and that it is one of the major reasons why youth unemployment in my constituency fell by 45% during 2013? Does he agree that this is a good moment for a debate on youth unemployment to see what more we can do to maintain this encouraging momentum?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. The rate of youth unemployment is lower than at the time of the election and the youth claimant count has fallen for 19 months in a row. That is a reflection of the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan. We can see practical benefits from that plan, not least for our young people, but it is also about businesses. We should always reflect on the success of enterprise and on the hundreds of thousands of new businesses that are being established. In particular, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made clear in questions, we must support small businesses and increase the proportion of small businesses that are exporting, particularly to the fast-growing economies around the world, because that will drive growth in the future.

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

I urge the Leader of the House to arrange an early debate on the welfare state. The welfare state in this country has provided wonderful support for tens of millions of people. It is a wonderful creation. In the light of the Channel 4 programme, “Benefits Street”, I suggest that everyone in the House reads Caitlin Moran’s article in The Times on the benefits that the great welfare state has brought to tens of millions of people as preparation for that debate. The welfare state in this country is something to be proud of, not to be derided.

[Mr Lansley]

I suggest that Members would be better advised to read the speech that is being made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. They will find that we are returning to the original intention of the welfare state, which is to encourage people to be in work and to help those who are most in need, not to create the opportunity for a lifestyle of living on benefits. People must contribute the most that they can not only to society, but to their own family by taking up the opportunities for work that the economy is creating.

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

Although I fully recognise the need to invest in flood defences, I understand that the Environment Agency put a spade in the ground two weeks ago to start work on flood defences for Exeter—a part of the world that my right hon. Friend knows well, having been to university there—which could have a significant impact on the railways from Exeter to Plymouth and onwards to Cornwall. May we please have a debate on that matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Network Rail has identified 10 projects to improve flood resilience on its western route. That programme might take several years and the funding mechanism is still to be determined, but it will be important to him. Network Rail is liaising closely with the Environment Agency and will continue to do so.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

At the beginning of the year, the Cabinet Office released documents under the 30-year rule relating to the miners’ strike. The documents clearly show that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and senior Cabinet Ministers interfered greatly in the miners’ strike, deliberately misled the country and potentially misled Parliament. May we have a debate on that matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of 1984. I was a civil servant at the time, so I was completely non-partisan in those matters, but I remember them. I remember well that the Government were making absolutely sure that the economy of this country was not held to ransom. That was really important.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) whether it was fair that a woman who is discriminated against at work because she is pregnant has to pay £1,200 to enter a tribunal. The Minister said that that was not true. Given that it is true—this is not a point of order, Mr Speaker—may we have an urgent debate on how the Government’s decision to introduce fees for employment tribunals is choking off access to justice?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman should simply have listened to the reply given by my hon. Friend earlier today.

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

In Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, average weekly gross pay has fallen by 32.5% since 2010, and the number of under-25s who have claimed jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months has increased by 223% since December 2010. May we have a debate on the cost of living, and on yesterday’s news that the unemployment count in the north-east went up by 1,000?

[Mr Lansley]

There were regional variations in the employment data yesterday, but having predicted the loss of 1 million jobs, it ill behoves the Labour party not to celebrate the fact that there are one and two-thirds million more private sector jobs in this country than there were at the general election. I am afraid the Labour party is in complete denial about the inevitable fact that, as a consequence of its policies, the deepest recession this country has experienced took the equivalent of about £100 billion from the country’s wealth. It is not possible for everybody in a country to have more money at the same time as it has been made £100 billion poorer.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

A young man in my constituency has a zero-hours contract, but when he has worked he impressed his employer who offered him a six-week training course, leading to a permanent job. I am sure the Leader of the House will want to join me in celebrating that young man’s success—except for the fact that he has been told by the job centre that he has not been on the Work programme long enough and cannot take up the offer. May we please have a debate on the mess that is the Work programme, which—not for the first time—has denied one of my constituents a proper job with real prospects?

[Mr Lansley]

It is the Government’s intention to support young people back into work, and that is what the Work programme and our Youth Contract are all about. It is the largest such programme to support young people, and as a consequence 114,000 fewer young people are among the claimant count. If the hon. Gentleman sends me the particular circumstances of his constituent, I shall of course ask for a response from my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

One supermarket in my constituency offers free newspapers and coffee, another has opened a new carwash and dry cleaner as it competes for customers, and that of course has a significant effect on local independent retailers. May we have a debate on the balance needed between the actions of the supermarkets and the need to look after our small shopkeepers, and on how we provide support for local independent retailers?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that competition is, as they say, the tide that lifts every boat. In his constituency, as elsewhere, competition will in the end deliver the best consumer benefits.

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

Everybody wants this country to maintain its economic improvement, but may we have a debate about cuts to local government education budgets? It seems contradictory to demand an increase in skills to compete with the world, while also cutting education at its source.

[Mr Lansley]

Notwithstanding the fact that we had to deal with the largest deficit of any country in the OECD, this Government made the commitment—among others—to protect school budgets, which we have done. The hon. Gentleman should celebrate the fact that, together with our coalition colleagues, we have put about £2.5 billion into the pupil premium to ensure that schools with some of the most disadvantaged children have additional resources to help them achieve success in future.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In September I asked the Prime Minister whether he would adopt a similar approach to that of Sweden and other European countries in accommodating Syrian refugees. He dismissed me, simply saying, “No, we are not going to do that.” Will the Leader of the House assure me that should the Government have a change of heart in the next few days, the Prime Minister will come to the Chamber to make any announcement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I hope the hon. Lady was in her place yesterday and able to hear the Prime Minister make it clear that this country is making the second biggest contribution to meeting the humanitarian needs of refugees from Syria, and proportionately we are doing more than anybody else to support those refugees. We are responding to and fully meeting our commitments to those seeking asylum, and as she knows, last year there were around 1,100 asylum applications from Syrian refugees. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that we will look at individual cases, but we will not do what some other countries have done who think that taking a relatively modest given number of refugees away from refugee camps somehow meets their obligations to the millions of refugees who want to be supported in their camps, and not to leave and give up hope of returning to Syria soon.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) called for a debate on welfare. We had a debate on welfare just 10 days ago, when the House of Commons voted by a majority of 123 in favour of a commission of inquiry into the Government’s welfare reform policies. When I asked the Leader of the House last week when he was going to establish the commission, he rather derisively told me that he had no plans to do so. The House voted for a commission. Will he to agree to set up such a commission, or is it the Government’s policy that Back-Bench motions are ignored and to be of no account whatsoever in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman imputes a motive to me that certainly was not there. He asked the question last week and I will repeat my answer today. The Government consider carefully all motions approved by this House. As I told him last week, I was not in a position to advise him that we had any plans to establish such a commission.

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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Lords amendments 17 and 104 to 107.

Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19.

Lords amendment 20, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 21 to 25.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 28 to 54.

Lords amendment 55, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 56 to 58.

Lords amendment 59, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 60 to 74, 109 to 116 and 18.

Lords amendment 75, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 76 to 98.

Lords amendment 99, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 100.

[Mr Lansley]

Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108, with which the Government disagree, relate to constituency limits and staff costs. I ask the House not to support amendments tabled by hon. Members to Lords amendments 20, 55, 59, 75 and 99.

After the Bill was last seen by the House, during consideration in the House of Lords, the Government undertook a further six-week consultation with interested parties—on part 2 of the Bill—that built upon the Government’s already considerable engagement with many campaigning groups. During the consultation, which took place between Second Reading and the Committee stage of part 2 of the Bill in the Lords, the Government held detailed, important and exhaustive—and sometimes exhausting—talks with some 50 organisations. Those discussions informed the Government amendments, with which the Lords agreed. As the House will have discerned from my opening remarks, many amendments—100 in total, encompassing 20 substantive issues—to part 2 have returned from their lordships, and we propose to accept all but three of them. The amendments, agreed in consequence of our discussions in the Lords, represent a considerable body of work undertaken in that House, and we are grateful to their lordships for that work.

The changes are designed to address the practical concerns raised by third parties, while preserving the important principles of transparency that underpin part 2. The amendments reduce the burden on smaller third parties who campaign at elections, ease the transition to the new regime and clarify the regulatory rules. That last point is important, because it became clear during the consultation that concerns often stemmed from a lack of awareness of the existing rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

As the House will recall, the PPERA established a framework for the regulation of non-party campaigning at elections, and many of the representations derived from an objection not to the Bill, but to how the PPERA rules, in the view of those making the representations, would have worked. This debate has enabled us to introduce amendments that meet many of the concerns raised, to clarify how charities and campaigners can legitimately campaign on policies and issues without falling subject to the election law regulatory regime and, where they may fall to be regulated, to reduce the burdens of compliance and ensure that small-scale campaigns are exempt from that regime.

The House will recall that before the Bill was sent to the Lords, we made significant changes to it here. In particular, we returned to the definition of “controlled expenditure” in the PPERA—in other words, expenditure

“reasonably regarded as intended to…promote or procure the electoral success”

of a party or candidate—but narrowed it slightly so as not to include the additional limb about enhancing the standing of parties or candidates. We had, therefore, already made some clarifications to the Bill before we sent it to their lordships.

Of those changes, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, one of the largest and most prominent umbrella bodies representing charities and the voluntary sector, said:

“The government’s commitment to abandon the change to the test of what constitutes non-party campaigning is a significant step in the right direction.”

[Pete Wishart]

The Leader of the House knows, because we have told him often enough, that on these issues we actively encourage the participation of the third sector in Scotland. In the light of that, why have the Scottish Government not received one reply from this Government regarding the Bill, particularly concerning its effect on our referendum and on Scottish charities?

[Mr Lansley]

The Bill, of course, will have no effect on the referendum in September. I do not recall receiving a letter from Ministers in the Scottish Government, although I do recall receiving letters from the First Minister of Wales, which I replied to. If Ministers have received any such letters, I shall gladly take advice on what the reply has been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that charities have never been able to use tax-privileged money to campaign for parties and individuals in elections, which is what he wishes to continue to be the case?

[Mr Lansley]

That is absolutely right. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recall—it has been interesting to have these conversations—that if charities comply with the guidance, called CC9, issued by the Charity Commission, we can be pretty confident, except in very limited circumstances, that they will not fall to be regulated under election law. It could happen if, for example, a charity pursued its purpose in a run-up to an election, received various pledges from various candidates or parties in relation to its objectives and then chose to issue details to the public. That could be held to be seeking to influence electoral outcomes. Frankly, however, our discussions have increasingly demonstrated a mature approach on the part of the charities, many of which have recognised that the Bill was not really about exempting charities and that only in very limited circumstances would charities fall to be regulated. Many charities completely understood and agreed that it was right for those who wished to influence election outcomes to do so openly and transparently. That is what the Bill is all about.

[Andrew George]

The Leader of the House implies that, in accepting all but three of the amendments to part 2, the Government are being generous, yet many of the amendments are, of course, Government amendments. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, as well as the charitable sector demonstrating its maturity, the Government might have learned some lessons from this particular process? What are those lessons, and does he not accept that he could have done things better?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but I think that, in this respect, my hon. Friend has not understood how these issues have often worked. I shall not go through all the amendments in detail, but many of those that he says are coming back to us as Government amendments were tabled as Government amendments on Report in recognition of the character of the preceding debate and consultation in Committee. Members of the House of Lords often raised issues in Committee. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Gardiner did magnificent work in determining where it was appropriate for the Government to make amendments in recognition of the concerns expressed. [Interruption.] I do not think that Opposition Members should sneer at the idea of the Government tabling amendments in the other place in order to bring them back here to meet the concerns, which is nothing other than a proper process of scrutiny.

There are a lot of amendments in the group, so let me set out the Government view of the main ones, starting with those with which we disagree. It is important for Members to understand where the burden of the debate lies.

Lords amendment 108 seeks to exclude staff costs associated with any member of staff of a third party from the calculation of controlled expenditure for transport, press conferences, organised media events, public rallies and public events. When Parliament passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it believed that the inclusion of staff costs was an important element of ensuring a transparent regulatory regime. As Labour Members will recall from their time in government, that Act included staff costs in the calculation of controlled expenditure for non-party campaigners. The decision was taken on the basis that where a third party undertakes other activities besides political campaigning and enters into political campaigning, its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My understanding is that our election agents would count as part of our costs when we stand for election, as would hiring a phone bank, so why should there not be full transparency in connection with the staffing costs in this case?

[Mr Lansley]

There is a distinction between the handling of staff costs for political parties and their handling for non-party campaigning. That was the point I was making: in so far as political parties have permanent staffing costs, they are not necessarily included, but it was determined in the 2000 Act that we should aim to identify the additional costs. [Interruption.] They are included in individual constituency calculations, but not in the total spending limits for political parties, as applied under PPERA on a national basis. Otherwise, if a political party had more staff, it would automatically have less money available to spend at the time of the election. It is essentially about parity of arms. Where third parties are concerned, except in relation to the election period, almost by definition they do not have permanent expenditure on party political campaigning, so what they spend at election time needs to be calculated.

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way, but I must make some progress; otherwise the Opposition Front-Bench team will start chuntering again, complaining that I have taken up all the time.

[Mr Allen]

I shall avoid drawing the parallel that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) drew between political parties on the one hand and charities and voluntary organisations on the other, which rather gave the game away. Let me refer more helpfully to the fact that my Select Committee supports the view that staffing costs should be included. However, we also support the second Chamber in its view that, for practical reasons, that should not apply this time round. The Electoral Commission and their lordships argued on practical grounds that because of the extra bureaucracy and the shortness of time, staffing costs should be exempt on this occasion, whereas they should normally be included.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point at this stage. He was a member of the Government who included staff costs for non-party campaigning in the 2000 Act, and I think it would have been consistent for him to have stayed with that position.

On the concerns of third parties about the difficulties associated with calculating staff time, that is an existing element of the regulatory regime. Its operation in the last two general elections, alongside Electoral Commission guidance, shows that such costs can be accounted for without it being overly burdensome. In its current guidance, the Electoral Commission takes a proportionate approach to the calculation of controlled expenditure, including staff costs, by stating that third parties should make an honest assessment of the costs, which need to be reported.

It should also be noted—Lords amendment 19 is relevant—that with the proposed increases in the registration threshold, smaller organisations, whether they be charities or other campaigning organisations, will not be subject to any regulation. The need to calculate staff costs will not apply in that case, and it is the same for any larger organisation that spends only relatively small sums. Volunteer costs will, of course, continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled expenditure.

As such, the Government believe that the inclusion of staff costs is an important element of the regime. We have none the less agreed to a review of the operation of the Bill during the 2015 general election. The inclusion of staffing costs will be an aspect of that review. Lords amendment 108 would, however, create a significant gap in the operation of an effective regulatory regime at the next general election, so I ask the House to reject it.

The next Lords amendments with which the Government disagree are Lords amendments 26 and 27—adding up to the total of three. These amendments provide that only limited activities should be considered as part of controlled expenditure for constituency limit purposes. The amendments would require that only the costs of election materials—whether they are addressed to households or otherwise distributed—and unsolicited telephone calls to households should count towards those constituency limits. They therefore fail to take into account the principle that lay behind the introduction of constituency limits, namely the principle of transparency. It is essential for members of the public to know when third parties are campaigning in the constituencies in which they live, and to know how much money they are spending in doing so if it rises above any significant level.

As Members know very well, campaigning does not revolve around leafleting and cold calls. There are events such as press conferences and rallies; there is transport to bus supporters to an area, and there are the payments made to campaigners. All those are significant aspects of campaigning, and excluding the costs of such activities would undermine the effectiveness of the constituency limits. The constituency limits applying to third parties were introduced to prevent candidates and political parties—they are, of course, the main actors in any election, and rightly so—from being outspent and overwhelmed by the activities of third parties, so that parties do not put their own candidates forward in an election. The Bill does not prevent third parties from campaigning, but it does require them to be open and up front about their spending, and not to overwhelm and outspend the candidates and parties.

[Caroline Lucas]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House has listened to all the non-governmental organisations that have tried to explain to him that, by and large, they do not organise on a constituency basis, and that trying to allocate the costs in that way is incredibly complex and time consuming. Is he ignoring those organisations because he does not understand how they work, or because he does understand how they work and wants to shut them down?

[Mr Lansley]

I have listened very carefully to what has been said to me. I think that campaigning organisations often object to constituency limits because they erroneously assume that when they are undertaking a national activity there will be disaggregation to individual constituency limits, because of, as it were, the coincidence of where that activity takes place. It will form part of a constituency activity in circumstances in which there is a significant effect in that constituency; otherwise, it will form part of a national activity. [Interruption.] The guidance will make clear that a constituency limit will apply when there is a significant effect in a specific geographical area or individual constituency, but that when the activity concerned forms part of a national activity, national limits will apply.

We need constituency limits. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is proposing that we should not have them, but when we sent the Bill to the House of Lords, a clear decision made by Members of the House of Commons expressed their belief that it was right to have them. Without them, the national limit could all be spent in individual constituencies: it could be targeted on a small number of constituencies in a way that would completely distort elections that are meant to be between political parties. That is the basis on which the Bill is structured.

[Wayne David]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. I need to make progress now.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would return the spending limits to a higher level than that for which the Bill provides—effectively, to the current level in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. It proposes a spending limit of £793,000 for England, £108,000 for Scotland and £60,000 for Wales. The limit for Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Bill, would continue to be £30,800.

During our debate on the last group of amendments, the hon. Gentleman spent half an hour lecturing us about the procedures of the House. He is the Chair of a Select Committee that, on Report, proposed amendment 102, which would have deleted clause 27 and left the spending limits as they were in PPERA. He argued for that, and the House rejected it by a majority of 51. Now he has presented a report to the House—from a Select Committee of the House—which completely ignores the House’s decision. The House has a view on this matter, but the Committee has ignored that view. The hon. Gentleman is simply re-presenting the same argument to the House, ignoring—on behalf of his Select Committee—the fact that the House has already rejected it. If the Select Committee does nothing else, it should take account of the view of the House before submitting a report to the House.

[Mr Allen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. Oh, come on then.

[Mr Allen]

I wanted to intervene so that the right hon. Gentleman could calm down for a moment and stop wagging his finger at Members.

Had my Select Committee—the majority of which consists of coalition Members—had more than two working hours in which to produce a report, we would have done an even better job; and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if we had had the time that he has had in which to produce a Bill, we would have done a damn sight better job than he has managed to do.

[Mr Lansley]

I shall not wag my finger at the hon. Gentleman, but he has made a ridiculous point. If the members of his Select Committee wanted to produce an additional report, they should have directed themselves to the Lords amendments. [Interruption.] They have not done that. What they have done is reintroduce, by way of an amendment to a Lords amendment, a subject—[Interruption.] Amendments were agreed in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment whose purpose is not to address the Lords amendment, but to reinsert a provision that was previously rejected, and was not even pressed in the House of Lords.

Both this House and the House of Lords agreed that a reduction in spending limits was sensible. The £450,000 overall spending limit that the Bill now proposes is at a level that few political parties exceed, accounting for the same range of activities. For instance, at the last general election only four political parties—ourselves, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the UK Independence Party—spent more than that.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

You spent a lot more.

[Mr Lansley]

We have equality of arms under the legislation, although I think I remember that, technically speaking, the Labour party spent more. But we will return to that.

There are about 100 other political parties, campaigning on a national basis, which managed to do so without exceeding that overall spending limit. Surely, if third parties wish to campaign on the basis of involving themselves directly in the influencing of elections, they should be able to do so without spending more than the great majority of the small political parties in the country have chosen to spend.

[Mark Durkan]

As a member of the Select Committee, I think it a bit rich for us to be lectured on proposing amendments to Lords amendments by someone who is proposing that we reject a number of significant Lords amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the Bill, as it broadly stands—with the Government’s suggested response to the Lords amendments—is so perfect, why did the Government table Lords amendment 99. which gives Henry VIII powers to Ministers enabling them to change the very law that he says is so perfect?

[Mr Lansley]

I shall deal with Lords amendment 99 later. What I will say now is that the amendment that we are discussing would leave the spending limit in Northern Ireland as it is under existing legislation, not least because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House went to Northern Ireland to meet organisations there and discuss these matters.

The third party spending limit allows for a great deal of activity. That is partly because much electioneering activity can be now conducted by means of new technology at a much lower cost than used to be the case, but in any event a third party could print 40 million leaflets, it could take out a dozen front-page advertisements in a national newspaper, or it could make 780,000 telephone calls from a professional phone bank. That, I think, demonstrates that the limits proposed by Lords amendment 20 are proportionate.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants to increase the amounts. Given that elections are meant to take place between political parties, why are the limits so extensive, and why have the Government allowed them to be so high?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the spending limits for political parties, or—

[Charlie Elphicke]

My point is this. Should not the third-party interventions be lower, given that elections are meant to take place between political parties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We have set out to strike a balance, and, in Lords amendment 20, we have changed the limits applying to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On the basis of all those arguments, I ask the House to resist amendment (a) if it is pursued by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.

Turning to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 55, the Government have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure reporting requirements are not overly burdensome. The Government removed the need for nil reporting and have also reduced the regulated period. The regulated period for third parties will commence in September this year, not May, and this will allow additional time for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and for campaigners to be fully aware of the regulatory regime. Owing to the reduced regulated period, this will impact on the quarterly reporting cycles for the 2015 general election, with the final “quarterly cycle” being compacted from September—three months is a short period running up to the general election.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North has tabled an amendment intending to deal with this situation. However, the Government believe that as this is late in the cycle and only reports of donations over £7,500 are required, third parties will have systems in place to cope with this reduced period. As there is no requirement for nil reports, a period—short or otherwise—will require nothing at all unless a large donation is accepted during that period. It should be noted that third parties will have to provide weekly reports after the Dissolution of Parliament, so the compacted final quarterly cycle will not result in an overly burdensome reporting requirement, particularly in the light of the Lords amendments, which we will come on to, relating to reporting requirements.

On the hon. Gentlemen’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 59, third parties will have to submit a donations return to the Electoral Commission only where they have received a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. Where they have not received a donation of this value, no report needs to be submitted. This underpins the aim of part 2, which is to increase transparency without placing overly burdensome reporting requirements upon a third party. As is the current practice, under section 96 of PPERA a third party will have to provide a full report of reportable donations three months after polling day. This return is submitted to the Electoral Commission. The Government believe that the section 96 return provides an important safeguard where a full record of reportable donations is provided and visible. This will allow both the Electoral Commission and the general public to ascertain the amount and source of all reportable donations received by a third party during the regulated period. The Government do not believe that this requirement is overly burdensome, as the information will have already been prepared by the third party. It also allows the opportunity for the third party to declare any reportable donations which it has failed to declare previously. This underpins the regulatory regime. We therefore do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which requires the same donation to be reported only once as that would risk a lack of transparency through this section 96 return coming after the election.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Most of the correspondence I have received from concerned members of the public is in support of charities, some very small, whose normal activities are not related to the electoral success of a political party or individual. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to set their minds at rest that this Bill will not be detrimental to them in any way?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can, for two reasons. First, only expenditure which would reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the success of a party or candidate might fall to be regulated as election expenditure, and it is demonstrable at previous elections under this regulatory regime that large amounts of policy-related campaigning has been undertaken by charities and that has not required to be regulated. The second reassurance, as we will come on to see with other amendments, is that we are proposing to lift the registration threshold up from the current level of £10,000 to £20,000. That will allow small-scale campaigning by organisations not to be part of the regulatory regime.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75, a statement of accounts has to be provided only if the third party has incurred controlled expenditure over the registration threshold. In addition, an individual is excluded from the provisions. Those third parties who prepare accounts under another enactment need not prepare additional accounts if the commission is satisfied they include equivalent information. When a third party registers with the Electoral Commission it must state, using a simple tick box, whether it is an individual or one of the bodies that can register as a third party. From this information, the Electoral Commission can ascertain whether the body provides accounts under another enactment. As a result it would add unnecessary additional bureaucracy to ask the third party to submit a subsequent declaration that it is exempt from the provisions, as the amendment requires. I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist with that.

Turning to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 99 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the order-making power, to which the hon. Member for Foyle just referred, would allow for the Government only to make consequential amendments. It would not allow the Government to amend the fundamental principles and provisions included in part 2 of the Bill. Any changes to primary legislation would be subject to affirmative resolution in any case. The power is also time limited, so that it could be used only until the date of the next general election. I should emphasise that I hope this power will not be needed, but I consider it prudent to insert it into the Bill, to ensure it is possible to make changes should unforeseen or unintended effects be identified after the Bill receives Royal Assent which could be put right by consequential provision.

The Government have introduced—the Lords is introducing—a number of amendments of significant benefit to campaigners, and we would not want to risk them being ineffective for any technical reason. We agree that it is important to consult the commission and I can assure the House that we will consult it before making an order under this power. The commission in its briefing agrees with this approach. Should the commission make a recommendation to us to use this power, we will consider such a recommendation extremely carefully. Because of the limited scope of the power and this assurance, the Government do not believe it is necessary to accept this amendment.

Baroness Thomas, the Chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords, described the power yesterday as

“well precedented and here it is very narrowly drawn. The House need not worry that the Government are in some way exceeding their powers or doing something they should not on this occasion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 615.]

Consequently, we cannot support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

Let me turn to the Lords amendments with which we agree. Lords amendments 106 to 107 set out in schedule 8A a consolidated and extensive list of the types of expenses which are excluded from counting as controlled expenditure. Further to the current exclusions provided for in PPERA, the Lords in these amendments extend them to include: expenses related to translating materials from English to Welsh or from Welsh to English; costs associated with providing protection of persons or property in relation to a public rally or event; and reasonable expenses incurred that are reasonably attributable to an individual’s disability. The exclusion of translation costs reflects the position of the Welsh language, which is governed by the Welsh Language Act 1993. Under that Act, the English and Welsh languages have equal status in Wales. This differs from other languages spoken in the UK, where the UK Parliament has not legislated to give them the same status as Welsh.

Lords amendment 19 increases the registration thresholds in the Bill, as I was discussing in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson). Those were set in the Bill at £5,000 for England and £2,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment however raises these amounts substantially, from £5,000 to £20,000 for England and from £2,000 to £10,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This change is in response to the many representations this Government have received from campaigners who spend only small amounts of money and were concerned that the Bill’s transparency provisions, though essential, would in fact impose unduly onerous compliance requirements. It is important to recognise, as many organisations did, that election expenditure should in principle be disclosed and regulated, but there were concerns that smaller organisations would be caught by the provisions. By raising the thresholds to levels that also take into account the extended range of activities proposed by the Bill, small campaigners can be assured that they will not suddenly be subject to administrative controls that they are not resourced or equipped to comply with.

[Bob Stewart]

Does the raised amount include staff costs?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. The registration threshold is the threshold of expenditure at which one is required to register, and all the limits for the registration threshold and the total spending limits are in relation to the definition of controlled expenditure which includes staffing costs for third parties.

Lords amendment 20 increases the spending limits—not the registration thresholds—for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by £20,000 each. This is an increase from the levels set in the Bill when it went to the Lords. The new limits will be £55,400 for Scotland, £44,000 for Wales and £30,800 for Northern Ireland. Campaigners have argued that the spending limits for those parts of the United Kingdom were disproportionately low—so low in fact, that they might force campaigners to step aside and not participate in elections. It has never been our intention to prevent third parties from campaigning altogether. They are a key aspect of the democratic process and, to ensure they remain so, the spending limits have been raised to more suitable amounts.

Lords amendment 18 relates to coalitions. It is important to recognise that the Bill did not change the regulatory regime for coalitions, but the debate on the Bill has enabled us to identify a change that will help campaigners that do incur small amounts of expenditure. The Government received many representations on the existing PPERA regime on coalitions. The concern was that the Bill’s provisions would put onerous reporting burdens on them. This fear was particularly pronounced in relation to those who often campaign as part of a coalition.

This new procedure introduces a new framework. A third party may participate in as many coalitions as it wishes. When it takes part in this procedure, it will not have to report for its expenditure, provided it does not incur total spend above the registration threshold—the numbers to which I just referred. The third party would take on the status of a “minor campaigner”. Another third party who agrees to act as a “lead campaigner” in the coalition’s common plan would instead report the expenditure it and the minor campaigner had both incurred. As with the registration thresholds, this provision is also intended to reassure small spending campaigners that new burdens will not be imposed upon them. Indeed, it will reduce the burden compared with the regime in the 2000 Act.

Lords amendment 28 removes the post-dissolution constituency limit of £5,850. Campaigners may now spend the entire constituency limit of £9,750 at any time during the regulated period, or just in the last few weeks before the election if they so wish. That makes it less restrictive and easier to comply with.

Lords amendments 91, 94 and 96 shorten the length of the regulated period for third parties. The regulated period is the time before an election within which only limited expenditure can be incurred, and certain campaigning rules must be observed. Reports must be submitted to the regulator. The regulator, the Electoral Commission and campaigners have argued that they need more time than the Bill would otherwise allow to understand fully the new rules and their responsibilities under them. The Government agree about the need to ensure suitable guidance is in place for campaigners. If the Electoral Commission needs further time to produce this guidance, and ensure it is relevant, clear and useful, the regulated period can be shortened to facilitate that. That is why the regulated period for third parties, for the purposes of the 2015 parliamentary general election only, will be reduced to seven and a half months—starting immediately after the Scottish referendum—instead of the usual twelve months.

Let me stress that the regulated period for political parties is not being similarly reduced.

The Lords have also introduced amendments to allow royal chartered bodies, charitable incorporated organisations, Scottish charitable incorporated organisations and Scottish partnerships to register as a recognised third party. This reflects the fact that the list of bodies that can register as a third party has not been updated since 2000.

The Lords have made further amendments that seek to reduce unnecessary burdens on recognised third parties. As a result, recognised third parties will have to provide a donations report to the Electoral Commission only when they receive a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. There will no longer be a requirement to provide nil reports. In addition, a recognised third party will no longer have to provide a spending return or statement of accounts if it only incurs controlled expenditure below the necessary registration threshold. When a recognised third party has to provide a statement of accounts, this can be sent to the Electoral Commission in a longer time frame—within nine months of the end of the regulated period, if they do not have to be audited, or 12 months, if they do have to be audited.

On non-party campaigning, in order to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are subject to review, Lords amendment 88 stipulates that the Government must, within twelve months of Royal Assent, appoint a person to review the operation of the PPERA provisions, as amended by this Bill, at the next general election. The findings of that review must be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the next general election—that is, by November 2016. The review will provide a unique real-time opportunity to assess how the new regulatory regime is operating, in good time for the 2020 general election.

Lords amendment 87 is not about non-party campaigning. It introduces a new measure to ensure that candidates’ personal expenses will be excluded from counting towards their election expenses limits at local elections in England and Wales. This change will harmonise those arrangements with the existing situation for parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections and Greater London authority elections, at which personal expenses are already excluded from candidates’ expenses limits.

This change has been brought about principally so that disabled candidates are not unfairly penalised for incurring disability-related costs, which can often be quite high. The need for the change became apparent following the creation of the access to elected office for disabled people fund. The fund was established by this Government to provide grants to disabled people who are, or who go on to become, candidates at elections. The fund provides grants to help candidates to overcome any barriers to elected office that might arise as a result of their disability. However, electoral law considered those grants to be personal expenses and therefore deductable from candidates’ election expenses limits at local elections—the one poll where personal expenses counted towards a candidate’s expenses limit.

Lords amendment 87 therefore brings the treatment of personal expenses at local elections into line with the arrangements for other polls where they are already exempt. It would be particularly unfair to penalise disabled candidates standing at local elections for accepting fund grants or even incurring their own disability-related costs. The amendment does not as yet extend to local elections in Northern Ireland or Scotland, as those polls are devolved. However, we will work with the respective Governments to ensure that there is consistency.

Much work has been done in this House, in the Lords and with external stakeholders to ensure that the Bill meets the principle of enhanced transparency for third parties who want to influence the outcome of elections, while preserving the essential freedom to speak out on issues. I should like to thank those who have contributed to the debates, and I reiterate my thanks to my noble Friends in the House of Lords. As has been said many times before, the purpose of the Bill is to bring greater awareness and clarity to campaigning activity. I believe that, through these amendments, that is what we can achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft civil legal aid regulations. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 231, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

There are many other examples that I could quote. I chose to quote Sir Stephen, but I could have quoted many other figures. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that there is pretty much unanimity among civil society, left to right, on this question. I will come back to that very point in a moment.

In an attempt to improve what we see as a flawed Bill, we support Lords amendment 45. It is an amendment of incredible importance to campaigning groups and charities. It is clear and simple, and calls for the removal of background staffing costs from activities such as press conferences, media events, transport costs and public rallies. We absolutely support the aim of transparency and accountability. The amendment is not designed to take these activities out of the parameters of the regulation. It is about removing the background staff costs from the activities set out in new schedule 8A.

[Mr Lansley]

It is amendment 108, not 45.

[Stephen Twigg]

I will take the Leader of the House at his word. Let me say “the relevant amendment”. I believe this relevant amendment is modest. It is primarily about not the costs themselves but the additional bureaucracy that this would involve. For many smaller charities, it would be incredibly difficult to differentiate the amount of time that the staff member spends on these activities from the time they spend on other activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned Lord Harries of Pentregarth. What he said in the other place is worth considering. It is easy to assess the amount of money that one will spend on hiring the hall for a public rally, because there is an invoice. However, there is no invoice for a member of staff or for the 10% of the time spent over four weeks carrying out the work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

We are talking about 4%. I do not have the information to hand—that is the honest answer to that question.

[Mr Lansley]

The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is Unison, which did not include staff costs.

[Stephen Twigg]

So this is what it is all about. Unison, on behalf of its members, spent 4%. The Conservative party spent 25 times as much as the biggest third-party spender, which suggests that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 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 20 January—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a carry-over extension to the Children and Families Bill, followed by general debate on payday loan companies. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 21 January—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, including on the subject of pub companies.

Wednesday 22 January—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2014.

Thursday 23 January—Debate on a motion relating to the Shrewsbury 24 and release of papers, followed by a general debate on Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 27 January will include:

Monday 27 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 28 January—Second Reading of a Bill.

Wednesday 29 January—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 30 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 February will be:

Thursday 13 February—A debate on the third report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report on supporting the creative economy.

[Ms Eagle]

I am sure that I am not alone in being disappointed not to be able to be at the funeral of our friend and colleague Paul Goggins today at Salford cathedral. We are all thinking of him and his family.

I had wanted to thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s jam-packed and exciting programme of Government business, but it is becoming increasingly hard to find any. Last week, he refused to reveal what has happened to the elusive centrepiece of the Queen’s Speech, the Immigration Bill, so I will ask him again. When will that Bill return to the House and what on earth is the hold-up? It certainly is not a lack of Government time, as he tried to claim last week.

Last Thursday, the Leader of the House also refused to tell us whether the Government are considering scheduling the Queen’s Speech during the pre-election purdah. I see that we still have no date. Will he now give us the date of the Queen’s Speech, or at least rule out staging the state opening during the election period, which would be a clear breach of the rules?

The lobbying Bill—one piece of legislation that we will debate next week—is in a complete mess. We have had a panicked pause and a flurry of amendments designed to silence the huge chorus of critical voices, but the Government still managed to lose two crucial votes in the Lords. Even in its current form, the Bill is an unworkable disgrace that threatens legitimate democratic debate, while letting commercial lobbyists off the hook. Last night, the other place defeated the Government by more than 40 votes to exclude some staff costs from the slashed spending limits. Will the Leader of the House accept that amendment when the Bill returns to this House next week?

The publication of papers from the National Archives under the 30-year rule has suggested that Mrs Thatcher’s Government may have played a role in the devastating attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation, but I would like the Leader of the House to give an assurance to the House that no documents will be withheld from the inquiry and that the Foreign Secretary will give a prompt and full statement to the House and make the conclusions of the report public.

On Tuesday, during Health questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), appeared to rule out any statutory regulation to prevent psychotherapists from providing gay-to-straight conversion therapy, arguing that a ban could have “unintended consequences”. Being gay is not an illness and should never be treated as something that can be cured. Aversion therapy is an abhorrent practice and the Government should be taking action to stop it. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health to clarify the Government’s position on those issues? Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), which would ban such so-called therapies?

It is now nearly a year since the Prime Minister gave the speech that was supposed to end all Tory divisions on Europe, and it is fair to say that it has not been a roaring success. Within weeks, Tory Back Benchers had amended his own Queen’s Speech motion, and they have not stopped banging on about Europe ever since. This week, there has been a letter from 95 Tory MPs demanding a veto on all EU legislation. Does the Leader of the House agree with his Cabinet colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has described that latest Tory Eurosceptic initiative as “right-wing national escapism”? Or does he agree with me that we should build bridges with Europe to deliver real reform, in Britain’s national interest, rather than petulantly threaten to leave?

The Government are so out of ideas that they have run out of legislation 16 months early; so determined to stand up for the wrong people that they defend massive bankers’ bonuses; and so out of touch that they would rather squabble about Europe than govern in the national interest. I understand from press reports this week that Ministers have spent thousands of pounds on acting lessons from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. I think the whole country will agree that whatever their method, it is time the Government exited stage right.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement of business. In particular, I join her and our colleagues, including Mr Speaker, who will be representing the House in Salford cathedral today, in expressing our continuing condolence to Paul Goggins’s family and friends.

The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the Immigration Bill. The remaining stages will be announced in due course. I love to leave the House wanting more, and I think I have done that today, not least for the week after next.

The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the Queen’s Speech. I am sorry, but I think she is trying to engender a certain indignation about that. I have made no announcement, and she will recall that last year, I announced the date of the Queen’s Speech on 7 March, so it would be premature to make an announcement at this point.

The hon. Lady is still living in a fantasy world on the impact of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. It will not stop charities and other campaigning organisations campaigning on policies or issues. It will do what it says on the tin—introduce additional transparency and a requirement that those who wish directly to influence the outcome of elections must register to do so. In response to extensive consultation with many dozens of stakeholders, we have brought forward a number of amendments in the other place. If she had cared to read the debates from Monday and Wednesday in the House of Lords, she would have discerned that there is now a lot of compromise and reconciliation on the Bill. Yes, there was a defeat on Monday and a defeat on Wednesday, but we explained carefully why we did not agree with the amendments in question that were tabled in the Lords. The Lords have still to consider the issues further on Third Reading, but I look forward to the debate next Wednesday when I hope we will see a useful Bill passed through both Houses.

The hon. Lady asked about the inquiries into matters back in 1984 relating to the Golden Temple at Amritsar. I do not think I can add anything to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He has asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake an immediate review, which will look at all the documents. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday that he would consider whether it was appropriate to make a statement, or for somebody to make a statement, but one cannot really determine what one should say to the House until one has understood the review’s findings.

The hon. Lady asked about what is referred to as conversion therapy. We do not believe that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is an illness to be treated or cured, so as my colleagues have made clear, we are concerned about so-called gay-to-straight conversion therapy. To be clear, the Department of Health does not recommend the use of such therapy, and it is not a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended treatment. Indeed, clinical commissioning groups must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.

The hon. Lady is right that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has a private Member’s Bill on the list for Second Reading on 24 January, but I cannot say whether we will have the opportunity to debate it on that day.

The hon. Lady asks about Europe. I listened to my noble Friend Lord Dobbs in the House of Lords when he promoted the European Union (Referendum) Bill. The unity in the House of Commons was reflected in a substantial and impressive degree of unity among colleagues in the House of Lords. Lord Dobbs said that anybody under the age of 60 did not get to vote in the 1975 referendum, but I am under 60 and I voted. I voted then for a Common Market and I still want to be in one. Many Conservative Members, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, want a European Union that delivers an effective single market that boosts the competitiveness and wealth of the people of Europe. That is what we are looking for.

I should mention one other thing that we are keen to do in the House—I hope those on both Front Benches share this view. We want the role of national Parliaments to be strengthened in relation to decision making in the EU. We want the yellow card procedure to be used. It has been used once and it should be used whenever subsidiarity or proportionality do not justify measures brought forward by the European Commission. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to promote—he is finding friends and allies across Europe in this—a red card procedure for national Parliaments in relation to European decision making.

The House may not have heard, but it was announced this morning that Andrew McDonald, the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, will retire at the end of March because of ill health. There will be future opportunities for hon. Members to give our thanks to Andrew before he retires, but in establishing IPSA in 2009, he delivered what at the time seemed to be nigh impossible. Despite his ill health from time to time, he has shown great leadership and professionalism in his role at IPSA. I have found him a great pleasure to work with since I became Leader of the House. His skill will be much missed at IPSA and by the House.

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

I am sure it has come to the notice of the Leader of the House that, in the past few weeks, we have had disastrous flooding in Somerset—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is in his place. We are desperately in need of a formal debate on flooding. I have a Backbench Business Committee debate on flooding next week, but it is not good enough. We must have time for a debate. Year after year, flooding is a problem in the UK. We must discuss what we are going to do about the Environment Agency, funding and capital to ensure that we stop having to come to the House every year to beg for money from the Government of the day.

[Mr Lansley]

The Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House have the greatest possible sympathy for those affected by the dramatic flooding events, and particularly for the constituents of hon. Members in Somerset. We offer our support and sympathy.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point on debates. I hope that, in addition to the support he has already received from the Backbench Business Committee, there is time available from the Committee in the weeks ahead. I hope that he and other colleagues whose constituencies are affected look to the Committee for such debates. They would be much supported on both sides of the House.

From the Government’s point of view, my hon. Friend will recall not least the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the recent debates on the flood insurance measures in the Water Bill, which reflected how flood management is a priority for the Government. We are investing a record amount and reducing the risk of flooding to 165,000 households during the current spending round. Investment will reduce the risk of flooding for a further 300,000 households in the spending round beyond.

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

Yesterday, tucked away in the routine publication of statistics from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, we learned that statistics for bovine TB have been suspended because of what the Government agency reported could be a significant over-reporting of the incidence of bovine TB since September 2011. This means that the House has been inadvertently misled on a prime justification for badger culls. Will the Leader of the House demand that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs make an oral statement to the House early next week?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman correctly notes that a system error in the GB bovine TB statistics has been discovered by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which affected some of the monthly statistics published. That has affected the reporting of TB statistics; TB surveillance and disease control regimes have continued to operate normally. No livestock businesses should have been directly impacted. The scheduled publication happened, but some of the figures that would normally have been included have been excluded for now. Urgent work to put right the error is ongoing, and a full set of statistics will be published as soon as possible.

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

May we have a debate on transparency and the use of public funds in local government? In Somerset, a previous leader of the county council fell out with the chief executive and summarily sacked him in 2009. That cost Somerset council taxpayers more than a third of a million pounds. It now appears that exactly the same thing is happening again. The present chief executive is “out of the office” and has been for seven weeks. No statement has been made by the council, and members of the council have been gagged by a confidentiality clause. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—who I gather is in my constituency this week, although he has not had the courtesy to tell me—to investigate?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand it if I do not comment on the specific case in Somerset to which he refers, but I hope he knows that we are taking steps to simplify the process used for resolving disputes with senior council staff. Indeed, the Secretary of State announced that the designated independent person process is to be abolished and steps will be taken to enhance the transparency of local decisions taken by the full council to provide the necessary protection for senior officers. Soundings were taken on the current proposals. That process closed on 14 January and the Department is currently considering the responses it has received. That is the general context. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not only inform the House in due course on how he is proceeding on those matters, but respond specifically to my hon. Friend.

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

Between June 2011 and September 2013, only 5.4% of the 3,670 disabled people put on the coalition’s Work programme have found jobs. May we please have a debate on the lamentable failure of the Government’s flagship policy for getting disabled people into work?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware of the welfare reforms and poverty debate that took place earlier this week. I hope there will be continuing opportunities to consider the Work programme, because overall one can see how it is making an enormous difference to those who have previously been out of work. On disabled people specifically, I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the written ministerial statement today from my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions on the publication of “Better Working with Disabled People”. I hope that that shows how the partnership with disabled people and their representatives is improving under this Government.

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

I have been approached by a constituent who has seen her arrears increase since Law of Property Act 1925 receivers were appointed to manage her property. May we have an urgent debate on the role and regulation of LPA receivers?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not dilate on the issue of LPA receivers at present, but I will ask my hon. Friends to reply directly to my hon. Friend. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but by raising the issue he has enabled us to focus additional attention on it.

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

A series of UN Security Council resolutions dating back to 1948 have sought to bring resolution in the disputed area of Kashmir. Will time be made available by the Government for a debate to allow the voices of the people of Kashmir to be heard?

[Mr Lansley]

Like many hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the continuing concern among many of our constituents about Kashmir. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but I have heard the Foreign Secretary respond sympathetically on these issues, so the hon. Gentleman might consider raising them at Foreign Office questions next Tuesday.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I was going to ask for a debate on the mice infestation in my office, but I suspect there would be so many Members scampering into the Chamber to take part that there would not be time, so I shall not do so.

I am pleased that the Government will be spending £18 billion during this Parliament on new school buildings and developments to existing ones, but may we have a debate on the time scales for these improvements to ensure that there are shorter periods between the agreement of funding, an agreement on the design of the schools and the start of the building projects?

[Hon. Members]

Answer the one about the mice.

[Mr Lansley]

I am scurrying to answer. I was just wondering whether there were any traps in my hon. Friend’s question.

My hon. Friend will recall that when we came into office, under the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme no school construction had started. It is the experience of many Members that considerable reductions in costs and an acceleration in process have been achieved under this Government through the new Priority School Building programme. The Secretary of State recently announced that 260,000 schools places had already been created under this Government, and additional substantial funding has been announced that I think takes the funding over this four-year period to about two and a half to three times what it was under the previous Government. All that is positive news. We want to ensure that plans put in place are cost-effective and achieved in as timely a fashion as possible, and I know that that is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

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

Members on both sides of the House have long had concerns about the badger cull, the Government’s case for its efficiency and effectiveness, and its very morality. We now find out that their case is based on largely dodgy statistics. May we have a debate in Government time on this issue, which is so important to our constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that the hon. Lady should get too carried away until the statisticians have quantified the error. One should not characterise the situation as she did and certainly should not exaggerate. The Government have been assiduous in bringing this issue back for the House to consider, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to do so.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

One of the potential benefits of devolution is that different Administrations can follow different policies, giving us the opportunity to learn from each other. There is particular concern about the performance of education in Wales. May we have a debate about how devolution operates, and about possible mechanisms for making direct comparisons so that we can learn from each other about how different Administrations work?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly points to concerns, not least those captured in the OECD’s statistics on educational attainment. Those statistics, which make comparisons between countries, including England and Wales, show a worrying lack of attainment in reading and mathematics in Wales, and it is important to deal with that. In my view, this is not an intrinsic criticism of devolution, but much more a criticism of the policies pursued by the devolved Administration in Wales. We do not need a change in the devolution settlement to tackle these issues; we need a change of Government in Wales—away from a Labour Government.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I listened to the Leader of the House’s answer on the revelations about the Golden Temple in Amritsar. This issue has caused much shock and upset for many of my constituents of all faiths. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he thought that a statement might be in order. I hope that we get that statement; many of my constituents will be disappointed if we do not. I also impress on the Leader of the House the need for the inquiry to report quickly, rather than being kicked into the long grass, as some of my constituents fear.

[Mr Lansley]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. As soon as the Prime Minister was aware of the issue, he took action and asked for a review, which is fair enough, but it is not our practice to say that we are going to make a statement until we are in possession of all the facts. It is reasonable for us to operate on that basis. Rather than the hon. Gentleman and others trying to decide what happened, it would be better to wait and find out what happened.

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

May we have an early debate on the procedures to be followed for fracking? A number of fracking licences are being applied for in my area, and I honestly do not know what procedure applies. We heard in Energy and Climate Change questions that there will be a strategic environmental assessment through which we might be able to find out what the licences cover. There is an important difference between the shallow fracking that currently takes place and deep fracking, which will send shock waves through the countryside and is a matter of much greater concern.

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber for Energy and Climate Change questions, so she will have heard about some of the essentials of what a regulatory road map for fracking licences would look like. I know that Members are seeking opportunities for debates through the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure that the House will continue to consider this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I was a bit surprised by the Leader of the House’s answer to the question about the Queen’s Speech. There is a major innovation here because, for the first time ever, the Government have delayed the local elections until 22 May—the date to which the European elections have been brought forward—and the right hon. Gentleman has already announced the date on which we go into recess as 22 May, meaning that the only way of having the Queen’s Speech in May would be to hold it during purdah. Surely he can just rule out bringing Her Majesty here and tying her into party politics by having the Queen’s Speech during an election period.

[Mr Lansley]

Given that I have not made any announcement about the date of the Queen’s Speech, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said is pure speculation.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

In what can be described only as a slam-dunk start to 2014, Rossendale and Darwen has heard the announcement that it is the biggest climber in the UK competitiveness index, we have been awarded £2 million to restore our town centre in Bacup and two new major employers are opening up in Darwen. May we have a debate in Government time about how the Government’s long-term economic plan is working and on how Rossendale and Darwen, east Lancashire and your constituency of Chorley, Mr Deputy Speaker, are the best places in Britain in which to start and grow a business?

Mr Lansley: I wish I had time available for such a debate, which would provide an excellent opportunity for my hon. Friend to showcase and pay tribute to what Rossendale and Darwen is doing. It would provide a fantastic opportunity for us to debate the clear success of the Government’s long-term economic plan. We are reducing the deficit, cutting income tax and fuel duty, creating more jobs, capping welfare, reducing immigration and, of course, delivering on better schools and skills, all of which is exemplified in Rossendale.

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

May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would never need acting lessons from RADA?

The Leader of the House knows of my continuing obsession with the accountancy profession and particular auditing processes—or a lack of them—regarding the banking scandal. May I point him to a particular worry about a company called Grant Thornton, which is involved in a relationship with Kaupthing bank in the context of the Icelandic banking collapse? The relationship between that bank and the Serious Fraud Office is a matter of much speculation, and it is believed that £400 million of taxpayers’ money is being held back by Grant Thornton, meaning that the public cannot get it. May we have a debate on the accountancy profession and Grant Thornton’s practices?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to comment on any of the specifics in that question. He will have noted that there was an Opposition debate on banking yesterday. In our previous exchanges at business questions, the passage of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 afforded him the opportunity to raise such issues.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend and hon. Members to the House of Commons Members’ Fund Bill, which I introduced and which is scheduled for Second Reading tomorrow? The Bill will reform the archaic and costly legislation that governs the benevolent fund that exists to help former Members of Parliament and their dependants who fall on hard times. It will reduce costs and reflect changing circumstances, thereby enabling us to forgo a Treasury grant, to suspend the £2 monthly payment that each Member makes to the fund and to return £1 million to the Treasury, while also ensuring that the fund remains capable of meeting ongoing needs given that, sadly, hardship continues to occur among former Members. If the Bill receives its Second Reading, will my right hon. Friend expedite—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will manage to construct an answer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Members’ fund and whose stewardship of it, along with that of his colleagues, has been very effective. I think that anyone who cares to read the explanatory notes accompanying his Bill will appreciate what a sensible and welcome reform he proposes. He might have been wondering whether, if the Bill receives its Second Reading tomorrow, the Government will table a money motion in support of it, and I can tell him that that would be our intention.

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

The Business Sprinkle Alliance organises fire sprinkler week, which this year will begin on 3 February. The Building Research Establishment and the Centre for Economics and Business Research have published data showing that fire causes £1 billion of losses to the United Kingdom economy every five years. Can we expect a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in support of fire sprinkler week?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course draw what the hon. Gentleman rightly says to the attention of my colleagues in BIS. They may well be aware of the facts that he has given, and supportive of what he has said. I think he will agree that, overall, this country’s fire prevention measures have been remarkably successful, but it is nevertheless important for us to maintain them, because there are still occasional tragic instances in which fires result in injuries or fatalities that could have been avoided if the right sprinklers and other preventive measures had been in place.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Business questions probably constitutes one of the most important sessions in the week. We have two star performers who do not need any acting lessons, but the real advantage of being here for business questions is that we learn the truth, as well as new things. Today we have learned from the shadow Leader of the House that the Labour party is in favour of continuing our present relationship with the European Union and is opposed to an EU referendum, and we have learned from the Leader of the House—I do not think that even the Prime Minister has said this—that the Conservative party now wants to return to a common market and nothing else. That is really good news, so will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on whether the EU should become just a common market, and give our Liberal Democrat colleagues the right to vote against that proposal along with Labour Members?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said when I announced the future business, we expect the remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill to be debated on Monday week. I think that that will give Members an opportunity to continue to debate specific issues relating to the Europe for Citizens programme which, in my view, illustrates the capacity for positive co-operation across Europe that extends beyond the achievement of a common market.

I fear that I must inform my hon. Friend that while I said that I had voted for a common market and that I wanted one, I did not say that I had voted for a common market and nothing else. However, I think that there is as yet unfinished work to be done in the establishment of a single market, and that one of the best things that we can achieve in Europe is to become the strongest and most influential advocates of a competitive single market. I thought that the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier this week amply illustrated the benefits of that competitiveness to Europe, the necessity of achieving it, and the dangers of not doing so.

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

Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the closure of North Skelton ironstone mine, which was the last ironstone mine in East Cleveland to close. East Cleveland ironstone fed Teesside’s iron and steel industry from the days of Bolckow and Pease, with great structures such as the Sydney harbour bridge being smelted from East Cleveland iron on the banks of the Tees. More than 30 men and boys were recorded as dying in North Skelton pits, so may we have a debate on making Skinningrove’s East Cleveland ironstone mining museum the nation’s ironstone mining museum?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says and think that he makes an important point about the history and circumstances of his constituency. I cannot promise a debate, but he has put his important points on record and there may be further opportunities for him to raise them.

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

May I associate myself with the words of the Front Benchers about Paul Goggins? Paul was a lovely man, and we worked together over the past three or so years as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Leader of the House will be aware that that Committee has got some new and inflated powers, following the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013. Will he therefore reinstitute the annual debate in Government time on matters of security and intelligence?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right that that Committee has important new responsibilities and powers under that Act. It was not an invariable practice that the Government would hold an annual debate, but it is also the case that, when the Backbench Business Committee was established, it was clear that a number of general debates that had taken place in Government time previously should properly be considered by the Backbench Business Committee as debates in its time. I have had a continuing conversation about that with the Chairs of the ISC and the BBC.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Any attack on a place of worship must be condemned so, on behalf of my constituents and those of other Members, may I ask that all the documents in respect of what happened at Amritsar in 1984 that are in the custody and control of the Government are released so that we have full transparency?

[Mr Lansley]

Without wishing to repeat myself, let me say that I completely understand and share the concern the hon. Lady raises, but I urge Members not to prejudge the circumstances then until we know more.

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

With the rise and re-emergence of anti-Semitism across mainland Europe and its links to organisations in the United Kingdom, may we have a debate about how we can stamp out that vile practice?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I think that the whole House will be grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for a debate to commemorate Holocaust memorial day next Thursday. Recently, of course, we received the findings of a survey by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights showing that, regrettably, two thirds of respondents considered anti-Semitism to be a problem, while three quarters said that the situation had got worse over the past five years. While that survey found that the UK Jewish community had more confidence in the authorities here and were less nervous about anti-Semitism than communities elsewhere in Europe, there are too many anti-Semitic incidents, so we need to work actively with civil society to challenge anti-Semitism through education and better reporting, and by tackling hate crime.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As we have heard about Ministers’ acting lessons, may we have a written statement from the Prime Minister about the cast of characters—the 96—who wrote to him about the European Union, because do not the public and this House have a right to know who are the principal players in the Euro soap opera that is the current Conservative party?

[Mr Lansley]

As I understand it, the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is flawed in that the reference to money being paid for drama lessons was in relation to civil servants, not Ministers.

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

As the only Sikh Member of the House of Commons, and as a Sikh who was 16 when the attack on the Golden Temple happened, I would like to advise hon. Members that, 30 years after that event, what Sikhs actually want is an end to rumour, suspicion and speculation. What they all want is the truth, and I ask all Members of this House to avoid politicising this because it is much more important than that.

Turning to my substantive question to the Leader of the House, Wolverhampton council is seeking to close Wolverhampton central baths. A petition has been signed by 6,000 people including myself. May we have a debate on safeguarding valuable facilities such as Wolverhampton baths?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Members throughout the House will take on board and follow his prescription in relation to the events in Amritsar. He is quite right to say that the truth needs to be established.

I also completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about swimming pools. Local authorities have the ability to use their public health resources to look at a wide range of issues, not least because of the reforms brought in by this Government, and I hope that they will consider access to swimming pools as a significant source of support for public health. For example, I recall a scheme—in Birmingham, I think—that provided free swimming opportunities for older people as part of the local authority’s public health measures.

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): Shares in Royal Mail closed at 616p yesterday, which was their highest ever price and 90% more than the issue price of 330p. May we have a statement from the Business Secretary on why he sold Royal Mail at 330p, and why he finds it acceptable that the taxpayers of this country lost £750 million?

[Mr Lansley]

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) gave evidence to the BIS Committee that amply illustrated how, after many years of failure to secure the necessary private sector investment in Royal Mail, this was a very positive step forward. Securing a successful sale was an achievement. The Secretary of State and the Minister responded to the points put to them, and the Select Committee will report in due course.

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

Does not Monday’s welcome news that the Government are going to offer more to communities that might be affected by fracking add to the need for a full debate on the Floor of the House about the community compensation scheme for fracking so that we can determine whether enough is being offered, whether the scheme needs statutory underpinning and how we can protect future funds as an addition to other local government funding?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall what the Prime Minister said yesterday in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about this subject—he was very supportive of continuing to discuss it with the Local Government Association. My ministerial colleagues and I will ensure that the House is updated in response to the points that my hon. Friend has rightly raised.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Headlines in the past few days’ papers have stated that sugar is the tobacco of today’s age and warned of the dangerous levels of obesity and diabetes resulting from the addition of sugar, salt and carbohydrates to the foods that we eat. This is not just a health issue. Will the Leader of the House arrange that we have a statement—or, better still, a debate—on this important subject?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the responses from the Prime Minister yesterday and from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last week on this issue. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; one of the objectives that we are achieving through the responsibility deal is the reduction of sugar in foods in a manner that reflects the successful approach that we have taken to the reduction of salt. This is not something we can unilaterally impose, not least because of the structure of the single market. Making misleading comparisons with tobacco is unhelpful in this context; any consumption of tobacco is harmful, whereas it is the excessive consumption of sugar that is harmful. We want to tackle the inclusion of excessive amounts of sugar in food, and we can do so.

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

May we have a statement following the visit of the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, which resulted in a significant joint communiqué yesterday that reaffirmed the active commitment of the Prime Minister and the President to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem? Significantly, it included an agreement to allow property development within the sovereign base areas. Does not that demonstrate that the British Government are a true friend of Cyprus?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Yesterday’s meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus was very welcome, and the statement was an important one. I hope that, as a result, there will be opportunities for my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to set out further details relating to this matter.

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

On Monday, the House passed a motion, with massive all-party support, calling for a commission of inquiry into the effects on poverty of the Government’s welfare reforms. I know that the Leader of the House is a great defender of Back-Bench debates and motions. Will he tell us when the Government intend to establish such a commission of inquiry?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any positive response in that regard. Backbench Business Committee debates are important, and we continually look at the conclusions that are reached and the contributions to those debates. However, I cannot give him any specifics about the date of any commission.

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

For many years, schools in my county of Leicestershire have bumped along at the very bottom of the education funding league tables, in stark contrast to schools in Leicester city. Each pupil there has £700 more funding than those in the county, while areas in my constituency have severe deprivation. Please may we have a debate on a fairer funding model for schools?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend will know that the Government agree that the current funding system—the one we inherited—is unfair and irrational. We have already introduced important reforms to ensure more transparency and consistency in the way in which school budgets are set locally, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce shortly how we plan to continue the reforms by taking steps to address the current unfair distribution of funding between local areas.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As the House knows, there is an excellent rock band in the House, MP4, but if Scotland secedes from the Union, it will be MP3. Will the Leader of the House assure us that if that were to happen, proper auditions would be held, with him, to ensure that there is a new keyboard player for MP4?

[Mr Lansley]

It is a matter of regret that I was not able to attend the concert on Tuesday, but I hope it went well and I have listened to the CD.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Gig.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am still in the 1970s—that is when I used to organise concerts. My approach to this matter would be to say that we are better together.

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

If the Leader of the House was unfortunate enough to be commuting on the Hertford loop over the past four months, he would know that First Capital Connect and Network Rail have combined to give the most sustained period of heavy delays, cancellations and limited rolling stock, resulting in passengers having to resort to bikes on some days. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has joined me in meetings with those companies, but we feel that yet more progress has to be made, particularly with negotiations for a new franchise coming up. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to have a debate on this appalling service in our constituencies?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that if he were able, with others, to go to the Backbench Business Committee, he might find time in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall to raise these specific issues. However, in order to be as helpful as I can, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to look specifically at the issues that he and his colleague raise.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House once again to look at the issue of housing in this country? Will he examine the terrible combination of the benefit cap, cuts in benefits altogether and the sky-high private sector rents in London, which are leading to the social cleansing of whole areas of our capital city? We need urgent action on this, including a debate on the need to bring in realistic rent controls so that housing is affordable for everyone in this country, not just the privileged minority.

[Mr Lansley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are as focused as any Government in recent history on increasing the supply of housing, from the woefully low levels occurring in the years before the last general election. Included in that is the achievement of additional affordable housing; we have 170,000 more affordable houses, following the lamentable decline of more than 400,000 in the number of social houses available under the previous Government.

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

At the north of England education conference this week, Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw said that the quality of teaching was improving. He also said:

“We have never had a more motivated, more qualified, more enthused generation of young teachers than we have now”.

That is a very encouraging quote. Please may we have a debate on what is being done to bring the brightest and best into our teaching profession, and to retain them, because that is vital to ensuring that our educational standards keep improving?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only Sir Michael Wilshaw, but The Times Educational Supplement has made it clear that there has probably never been a better time to be a teacher and to join the teaching profession, and the quality of teachers in our schools is at one of the highest levels it has ever been. That is partly because of the reform of initial teacher training, and 74% of graduates entering initial teacher training now have a 2:1 degree or higher—that proportion is the highest on record.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on education, particularly on the refusal of Tory councils to support or invest in community schools? That would give me the opportunity to raise the case of Sulivan school in Fulham, one of the best performing primaries in the country, which on Monday Hammersmith and Fulham council will decide to close and demolish solely so that its site can be given to a free school.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot comment on the particular case, but I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to look at the matter and respond. I will discover more about the circumstances then. In my experience, there is an undoubted determination on the part of councils—I know Hammersmith and Fulham as a council pretty well—to ensure improvement in the provision of schools.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Earlier this month, we had the welcome news that £29 million is being allocated to Harrow council for the creation of new school places. As a result, 13 schools will get 2,845 new places. That is in direct contrast to two years ago when the then Labour-run council failed even to submit a bid for much-needed school places. May we have a debate, on the Floor of the House, on the issue of school places and on ensuring that there is a place for every child in this country to get a proper and decent education?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an issue, which I, if I had time available, would welcome a chance to debate. The announcement before Christmas of additional funding for school places was important and welcome. He will know that since 2011 Harrow has been allocated a total of £36 million for new school places and has also benefited from £34 million of investment through the targeted basic need programme, which will fund the expansion of 15 schools by September 2015.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we have a debate to explain to former US Defence Secretary Gates that having a full spectrum of military cover has cost us grievously in the loss of more than 600 of our brave soldiers in two recent avoidable wars? Furthermore, being the fourth highest spender on defence in the world and punching above our weight means that we spend beyond our means and die beyond our responsibilities.

[Mr Lansley]

If we had such an opportunity with the former US Defence Secretary, he would understand that we, like many across the world, have had to take tough decisions on defence spending. However, he would acknowledge that, as a consequence of the decisions this Government have made and the value for money that we are achieving not least in procurement, we have closed that enormous black hole in commitments against resources that our Ministry of Defence had. That has enabled us to plan to spend £160 billion on equipment over the next decade, giving us a formidable range of cutting-edge capabilities. As for the Navy, the new aircraft carrier is almost complete, and the Type 45 destroyers, Type 26 frigates and seven new Astute class submarines are coming into base, which demonstrates that we have the best trained and equipped armed forces outside the United States.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The Government’s welcome banking reforms, including the raising of capital, are one part of countering the excessive risk-taking over many years by the banks. Another part of that is for the banks to acknowledge the consequences of that risk- taking. May we have a statement on the slow rate at which banks are looking into things such as the mis-selling of interest rate swaps to so-called unsophisticated investors?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 will allow us to make important steps in ensuring that we have a banking system that is not prey to the regulatory failures of the past. None the less, he makes an important point about mis-selling in relation to interest rate swaps. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are anxious to make progress in settling that. I hope that the new Financial Conduct Authority will see that as one of its priorities.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Following the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), will the Leader of the House clarify in what way the significant over-reporting of bovine TB and its associated costs and consequences will be brought before the House?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have heard me say that although there were statistical errors, they will not have affected the surveillance and they will not have directly affected livestock businesses through costs and impacts. When the statisticians have identified and quantified the errors, there will be an opportunity for Ministers to provide information to the House about the nature of the error.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the Home Office to highlight the success of the National Crime Agency in cracking an international paedophile internet ring responsible for the online sex abuse of children living in poverty in the Philippines? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to congratulate Northamptonshire police, who first uncovered the ring through a routine investigation of the then registered sex offender and now convicted paedophile Timothy Ford in his home in Kettering? Does that not show that sometimes diligent routine local police work can have important international repercussions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I was not aware of the role of Northamptonshire police but I am interested to hear about it and I entirely endorse what he has to say about the merits of such diligent police work. The case also demonstrates the importance of the NCA’s focus on some of the issues that are of greatest concern to us all, including child exploitation. The nature of the internet has made it possible for some crimes to be perpetrated across the world and some measures, including the recent ones in Canada, can, along with the international co-operation of which our NCA is a part, give us heightened effectiveness in tackling such organised crime.

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

Why has the Home Secretary not made a statement to the House on the astonishing admission that police crime figures are fiddled to the point of being totally unreliable? Does the Leader of the House agree that that dreadful state of affairs needs to be addressed urgently?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all agree that it is important that recorded crime statistics are as robust as they possibly can be. One of the first things we did when we came into office was to transfer responsibility to an independent Office for National Statistics. It is doing its job, and that is a reflection of an important step that the coalition Government took. The Home Secretary asked the inspectorate to carry out an audit in June of the quality of crime recording in every police force, and only last week she wrote to chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly. It is worth noting that the separate and wholly independent crime survey for England and Wales, endorsed again yesterday by the ONS, also shows a more than 10% reduction in crime over the same period from 2010. Crime now stands at its lowest level since that survey began in 1981. The evidence is clear that police reform is working and crime is falling.

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

May we have a debate on the 2014 index of economic freedom, prepared by the Heritage Foundation, so that the House can explore why the UK is placed 14th on the list and why not a single other EU country is categorised as free, whereas countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada are categorised as economically free?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but he raises an interesting point. I know the Heritage Foundation and the importance of some of the research that it undertakes. The 1.2 million additional jobs created in this country since 2010 are evidence that illustrates to Europe the positive impacts associated with greater economic freedom. That is something that can be understood and appreciated across Europe.

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

Late last year, a relative of my constituents died while in prison serving a custodial sentence. He was tried and convicted in England but returned to serve part of his sentence in Scotland under what is called a restricted transfer. As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, when relatives are unable to afford to pay for a funeral the Prison Service is obliged to make a reasonable contribution to funeral expenses, but because this situation involved a prisoner convicted of an English offence serving in a Scottish prison neither the Scottish Prison Service nor the English Prison Service will take responsibility for this matter. May we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice about how prisoners who are transferred—or, more accurately, their relatives—are dealt with by the Prison Service?

[Mr Lansley]

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman raises that issue on behalf of his constituents. It is regrettable that they were placed in that situation. I do not know the circumstances of the case, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and his colleagues to look into it and respond to him as soon as possible.

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

In November, on the Terrace of this place, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society launched the Now or Never campaign on shaping pharmacy for the future. On Tuesday the Secretary of State for Health met me, pharmacists from Devon and Cornwall, including some from my constituency, and a member of the English Pharmacy Board. Given the Leader of the House’s commitment to putting pharmacists at the centre of the NHS, may we have a debate on how, by sharing data with pharmacists, we can work to take the pressure off GPs and accident and emergency units?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know, not least because the all-party group on pharmacy, of which he is a member, has followed these matters carefully, that the last contract under the previous Government promised pharmacists much but delivered very little. There is clearly tremendous potential, previously unrealised, for pharmacies to contribute to public health and prevention, taking the load off the NHS, for example by dealing with minor injuries and medicines management. There is every prospect that NHS England, through its framework pharmacy contract, and clinical commissioning groups have a tremendous incentive to use pharmacies, as do local authorities in relation to some preventive measures. I hope that they will do that. One of the blockages that he rightly refers to under the previous Government was pharmacists’ complete inability to access patients’ summary care records. We need to make it possible for patients to have their conditions monitored and treated and to be provided with medicines in pharmacies through access to that information.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

In the light of recent food scandals, including the horsemeat scandal, may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of food labelling, which allows consumers to know what is in the products they are eating and the country of origin? Will he also join me in congratulating Halen Môn Anglesey sea salt on achieving European special status? It is a unique product from a unique county of origin.

[Mr Lansley]

It is indeed, and I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Halen Môn Anglesey sea salt on the designation. It is about not only food safety, but preference, because consumers attach importance to quality. Origin labelling gives them access to the sort of information they want.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The scandal at Mid Staffordshire still casts a long shadow over the patients, families and health care professionals in my county. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—he is in his place—who has been a sterling champion of local concerns. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he favours having a debate on the matter. Will the Leader of the House find time for such a debate as soon as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and colleagues across Staffordshire for their assiduous work in following up on the concerns of their constituents. He is quite right that the Prime Minister has made it clear that we are looking to have a debate on the Francis report in due course. As I made clear to the House before, I did not feel that it was appropriate to have such a debate before there had been a full Government response. We had that response at the end of last year, and some of it is being reflected in measures coming forward in the Care Bill. However, I hope that it will still be possible to have a more general debate shortly on the Francis report and the Government’s response, because it raises issues much wider than those specifically covered in the Care Bill.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

When the Government reduced services at Rochdale infirmary and moved some of them to North Manchester general hospital, we were assured by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust that adequate public transport would be provided. That clearly has not happened. May we have a debate on the adequacy of public transport links to our local hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about this because, as he will probably recall, as shadow Secretary of State I was very concerned about access for communities not only in Rochdale, but in Bury and in Rossendale and Darwen, to services in north Manchester. I raised those concerns, along with other Members, at the time. Transport for Greater Manchester has a responsibility in relation to this. I know that the Department for Transport is aware of these issues and is raising them with TFGM.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 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)]

First, Mr Speaker, let me pay my personal tribute to Paul Goggins, a colleague held in the highest respect and affection throughout the House. His loss will be felt widely and for a long time.

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 13 January—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a motion relating to welfare reforms and poverty. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 15 January—Opposition day [17th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, including on the subject of banking.

Thursday 16 January—General debate on child neglect and the criminal law, followed by general debate on nuisance calls. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 January will include:

Monday 20 January—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 21 January—Opposition day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, including on the subject of pub companies.

Wednesday 22 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2014.

Thursday 23 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 January will now be:

Thursday 16 January—Select Committee statement on the publication of the 10th report from the Justice Committee on Crown Dependencies: Developments Since 2010, followed by a combined debate on the second report from the Justice Committee on Women Offenders: After the Corston Report and the fifth report on Older Prisoners.



May I also take this opportunity to congratulate all those who were recognised in the new year’s honours? We take pleasure, of course, not only in Members of this House being recognised for their service but in the recognition of those who give service to Parliament and take part in voluntary and public service. They include Michael Carpenter, the Speaker’s Counsel, John Pullinger, the House Librarian, and Nicholas Munting from the Catering Service. I also congratulate those within government who have been recognised, including the principal private secretary to the Patronage Secretary, Mr Roy Stone.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for what he said about those who work in the service of the House and have been recognised. All of them are thoroughly deserving. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, Michael Carpenter and John Pullinger are especially well known to me, as I work with both of them closely and on a very regular basis. They are deeply deserving of the recognition that has been afforded to them.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his tribute to Paul Goggins and wish to add my own. His untimely death this week has shocked and saddened all Members across the House. He was a kind and caring man who campaigned tirelessly for social justice, including his recent work securing the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill. All our thoughts are with his wife, his children, his family and his many friends.

May I also associate myself with the Leader of the House’s comments, and yours, Mr Speaker, about those recognised in the new year’s honours list? I cannot help wondering, given his appearance today, whether his hairdresser feels somewhat left out—perhaps it is an easier job with hair like his.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business—although, if we take away Opposition days and Back-Bench business, we yet again have very little meaningful Government legislation. Will he tell us whether that is what we can expect for the next 16 months? I note that the Government’s self-proclaimed flagship Immigration Bill is still mysteriously absent from future business, despite its consideration in Committee concluding on 19 November. Can we expect consideration on Report soon, or is the Prime Minister still running scared of the 69 Tory Back Benchers who have signed the rebel amendment?

We expect the Queen’s Speech some time in the spring, but the Government have yet to confirm a date. With the European and local elections scheduled to take place on 22 May, the pre-election purdah will be in force from the beginning of May. Unless the Government are planning a state opening with no announcements at all—I would not put it past them—it looks as though the Queen’s Speech will have to take place in June, after the Whitsun recess, the dates of which the Leader of the House has already announced. What conversations has he had with the Cabinet Secretary on the matter? Can he now tell us the date of the Queen’s Speech?

The universal credit fiasco continued this week as we discovered a war between the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for the Cabinet Office over IT support. Last night the Minister for the Cabinet Office slammed the DWP’s implementation as “pretty lamentable”. Will the Leader of the House arrange for him to make a statement to the House on why the Cabinet Office and the Government Digital Service have walked away from that costly chaos?

The Chancellor this week wished everyone an unhappy new year with a speech underlining his ideological obsession with rolling back social progress and shrinking the size of the state to pre-war levels. He announced his ambition for a further £25 billion of spending cuts in the first two years of the next Parliament, with £12 billion coming from the social security budget. The Deputy Prime Minister immediately called it a “monumental mistake”, and even the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions briefed against it. Treasury Ministers were unable to say which benefits would be targeted, but refused to rule out those for the sick and the disabled.

The Chancellor told us in his speech that 2014 would be a year when Britain faces a choice, and he was right—a choice between a Government who give tax cuts to millionaires while prices rise faster than wages, and a party that wants the economy to work for the many, not the few. He is doing his best to hide his failure to balance the Government’s books by 2015, but people across the country are £1,600 worse off under his watch and we will not let him rewrite history to cover up his failed economic plan. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor, rather than making these announcements where he cannot be questioned on them, to come to the House and tell us where his £12 billion of extra social security cuts would come from?

I hope that all Members had a good break over Christmas and have returned refreshed and ready for the new year. If the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues had a new year’s resolution to be better at their jobs, I must say that they have made a pretty shaky start. We have only been back a week and we have already seen the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rowing with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office about the gargantuan mess that is universal credit, we have seen the Education Secretary slapped down by his colleagues for trying to politicise the commemoration of the first world war, and we have had the spectacle of Liberal Democrats frantically trying to distance themselves from a Government they are a part of while simultaneously accusing the Tories of stealing their policies. All the Liberal Democrat press office can do is desperately retweet a BuzzFeed item listing

“ten reasons the British public will fall back in love with the Deputy Prime Minister.”

I would like to disagree with the Mayor of London, who this week called the Deputy Prime Minister a “prophylactic protection device”. Now I know I am not the world’s greatest expert in this area, but I thought you were supposed to be able to trust contraception.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her further questions. I agree with her: listening to the debate on the Mesothelioma Bill earlier this week, I thought it was a cruel irony that Paul Goggins was not able to be there to see it come into law and to continue to pursue the campaign he had fought so very well on behalf of his constituents and others.

The hon. Lady asked about Government business. We still have 19 Government Bills before the two Houses of Parliament and we are making progress on a wide range of legislation, some of which is of considerable importance, including, as I have announced, the remaining stages of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. She seemed to dismiss it but it is a very important measure in achieving much higher levels of rehabilitation for those with sentences of below 12 months, which will contribute to overcoming the high levels of recidivism.

I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for the Report stage of the Immigration Bill—otherwise I would have announced it—or for the Queen’s Speech; both are subject to the progress of further business. I will make announcements in due course.

The hon. Lady asked about universal credit. It has always been very clear—I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions make it very clear to the House on a number of occasions—that the Government have welcomed what the National Audit Office has said and have taken steps to put it in place. Yes, there is an adjusted timetable for the roll-out of universal credit, because we have listened, learned and acted in order to make sure there is safe and sound implementation. Part of that was always in anticipation of the transfer of responsibility from the Government Digital Service to the DWP’s own digital team.

I thought the highlight of the hon. Lady’s remarks was her question on hairdressing. I am quite pleased that people up in the Gallery can have a good look at the—[Interruption]—try to get that one into Hansard, Mr Speaker. When I visit Mr Polito’s in Cambridge, as I perhaps will this weekend, he will be able to advise me. [Interruption.] Mr Polito’s is not a person but a shop. [Interruption.] Actually, it costs £15, so I am getting my hair cut cheaper than the Deputy Prime Minister, which just shows that you can come to the Conservatives for value for money.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Chancellor. The Chancellor will be here to answer questions on 28 January. In a way, I would rather he were able to be here more often. Every time he comes here he is, as the hon. Lady says, able to make very clear the choice, which will become increasingly apparent as we go through this year, between a Government with a long-term economic plan that is delivering sustainable recovery for this country and, as we have heard only in the past few days, leading to business confidence at close to all-time highs, with employment in the private sector up by over 1.6 million; or, under Labour, more borrowing, more debt, more taxes, and the consequences of a second Labour recession.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I welcome the “help for high streets” initiative announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, which will undoubtedly help small businesses to flourish. Nevertheless, small district shopping centres such as Park Farm in my constituency are suffering as a result of seemingly flawed evaluations of rateable value by the Valuation Office Agency, with business owners in Park Farm paying up to £300 more per square metre of floor space than those in the centre of Derby. May we have a debate about our district shopping centres and how to ensure that the rates imposed on them are not too excessive?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point on behalf of her businesses. I am sure that she, like me, welcomed what the Chancellor had to say in his autumn statement in support of small businesses, specifically in relation to rates, including the announcement of £1 billion of support for business rate payers and the £1,000 discount, which will benefit approximately 300,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. That is very important. My hon. Friend raises the issue of rateable values, which are assessed by estimating rental value in the open market at a standard valuation date, currently 1 April 2008. Of course, any ratepayer can appeal their valuation if they feel it is inaccurate. The Department for Communities and Local Government recently published proposals to help speed up that appeals process.

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

The Prime Minister promised—very vocally—action on minimum alcohol pricing, but that seems to have waned as influence from lobbyists has grown. Could we please have a statement in the House on the Government’s precise position on this policy area?

[Mr Lansley]

We have been very clear that we are not at this stage proceeding with proposals on minimum alcohol unit pricing. We are going to learn more, for example, about what the consequences of the introduction of such a policy might be in Scotland. I have two things to say to the hon. Lady. First, it was only ever part of an alcohol strategy that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House, and a wide range of measures can have a substantial impact, including local alcohol partnerships, on reducing alcohol content. Secondly, when I had meetings with the drinks industry, they were not about lobbying against minimum unit pricing, but about getting a commitment from the industry to take 1 billion units a year out of the content of alcohol sold in this country, which would be extremely valuable.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given the increasing violence and political instability in Niger, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, may we have an early debate on Africa and in particular on improving relations between the French and British Governments regarding capacity and governance building? There is good practice on counter-terrorism issues and if that could be extended to helping one another to build up civic society and political institutions, that would, I hope, play a part in reducing the violence.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes important points. The Government are working very closely with our allies and some of the multilateral mechanisms to try to deliver greater stability in this area. With regard to the Central African Republic, for example, we have welcomed the Africa-led security mission and December’s United Nations Security Council resolution. We continue to work with our partners in the UN and the European Union to support the Economic Community of Central African States and the African Union. Our working relationship with the French Government concerning the Central African Republic and the Sahel is a good one and that should continue.

Given the range of issues in the Sahel, central Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, my hon. Friend makes an important point about whether there may be an opportunity for a debate at some stage on African issues. I cannot promise one in Government time, because there is pressure on Government time. [Interruption.] I have explained why previously. There may be an opportunity through the Backbench Business Committee. I will, if I may, take the issue away and continue to think about the possibilities.

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

May we have an urgent statement on the Government’s lost report on food banks? May I suggest that a search party be sent into the Department for Work and Pensions to track it down and then publish it? While that is being done, may I offer the Prime Minister the opportunity to visit a food bank in my constituency that is open, so that he can avoid doing what he did last time—when he visited a food bank in his own constituency that was shut?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Prime Minister have repeatedly responded to questions about food banks, as we will continue to do. For my part, I know, having visited a food bank, the value of food banks’ work. It is important to recognise that, and we have supported them. That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came into office, he changed the decision of the previous Government not to refer people from jobcentres to food banks.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In February 2009, Zac Knighton-Smith, who was five, was diagnosed with neuroblastoma and given only a few weeks to live without a new monoclonal antibody therapy. That treatment was not available on the NHS, but thanks to the efforts of the former health Minister Ann Keen, John Parkes of Northamptonshire primary care trust and the then shadow Secretary of State for Health—the Leader of the House—Zac received the treatment in Germany, which the NHS paid for. On Saturday, this lovely, full-of-life and happy little boy passed away. He will be sadly and greatly missed. However, without politicians of different parties working together, he would not have had the last five years of life. May we have a statement on how this Parliament can make a difference?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I recall the case to which he refers, and he is absolutely right that we in this House can make a difference, not least by working together, but especially where Members of Parliament pursue their constituents’ cases and concerns. I pay tribute to the way in which he did so on behalf of Zac’s family.

We can also make a difference by the policies we bring forward. In that respect, I am proud that as Secretary of State for Health in this Parliament I was able to introduce the cancer drugs fund, which has delivered treatments to 38,000 patients. We also decided to undertake investment in the delivery of proton beam therapy in this country, because the only way patients could otherwise access that treatment was by going to Germany.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the Leader of the House will know, 15 world health experts have today launched Action on Sugar, a campaign to tackle obesity and diabetes. Given that the Prime Minister said last year that obesity was one of the biggest challenges facing our public health service, may we have an urgent statement on the content of food and drink, the amount of sugar in food and drink and the links between that and the deaths of so many people each year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. In so far as the campaign announced this morning models itself on Consensus Action on Salt and Health and its approach, I will be very supportive of it, because I worked very closely with CASH and Professor MacGregor, and we have had significant success in reducing the amount of salt in food.

It must be understood that such campaigns will be achieved only by working with the industry on a voluntary basis—that is what the responsibility deal is about—and only on an incremental basis. The level of sugar in food cannot be slashed suddenly—otherwise, people simply will not accept it—but that is what the campaign intends and we should do that. However, inaccurate analogies do not help: I just do not think that the analogy between sugar and tobacco is appropriate. We have to understand that sugar is an essential component of food; it is just that sugar in excess is an inappropriate and unhelpful diet.

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

The Leader of the House will recall that on 19 December I raised with him the woefully inadequate 56 days given for people to respond to a 50,000-page environmental statement on High Speed 2, and I thank him for sending me a letter and making a formal correction to his response in Hansard.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has transpired since I asked that question that information has been left off the memory sticks and the online and hard copies of the environmental consultation material, and that environmental groups are not able to get hold of vertical profile maps with contours, which are particularly important in the light of the decision to dump 1 million cubic metres of soil in an area of outstanding natural beauty?

Is the Leader of the House also aware of a report in the Lichfield Mercury about HS2 Ltd having confirmed that individuals can petition against the HS2 hybrid Bill only if they have responded to the environmental consultation by 24 January? I do not believe that that can be true—it would have been slipped in as a way to short-circuit the process and to reduce the number of people petitioning against HS2—but will he look into that report and tell me whether it is true? Will he also tell me how the consultation period can be extended, given all the administrative failures by HS2 Ltd and the Government?

[Mr Lansley]

In order to be as helpful as I can to my right hon. Friend and other Members who have a constituency interest in the procedure for the HS2 hybrid Bill, I will, if I may, look into the issues that she raises and, in co-ordination with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, ensure that we reply to her and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House so that Members can see the procedure for the hybrid Bill.

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

May we have a debate on whether the commercial arms of fire brigades, such as community interest companies, should have to pay to receive publicly funded diesel for their appliances and vehicles, and whether such commercial arms have an unfair advantage over their competitors in the market?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who has responsibility for fire services, to look at that issue and respond to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, we should always try to have fair competition in markets and there should be no unfair subsidies from the public sector.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the minimum wage, which would enable many Members from all parts of the House to argue that it should be increased significantly now? The cost to the Government of any increase in the minimum wage would be largely met by more income tax coming in and fewer tax credits being paid out. An increase in the minimum wage could simultaneously help the lower paid and save money for the Treasury.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I cannot promise a debate immediately. I hope that there will be opportunities for Members to discuss issues relating to the minimum wage, including the situation for low earners, who have benefited from the Government’s approach to income tax. Changes to the national minimum wage are introduced on 1 October each year. I say gently that there are good reasons for that. Changes in October are an established part of the labour market and many companies operate their pay reviews to coincide with them. Although I completely understand the point he makes, I do not sympathise with the idea of accelerating the timing of any increase in the minimum wage.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I was among the many Members who wanted to speak in last month’s debate on food banks but did not get the chance to do so. The Meadows Advice Group in my constituency tells me that more and more people are being forced to turn to food banks to survive as a result of stagnant wages, rising debts, the bedroom tax and other benefit changes. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Government’s response to the crisis in the cost of living before the Chancellor hits poor and vulnerable people with even deeper cuts?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady may not have noticed, but following the debate on the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords] on Monday there will be a general debate on welfare reform and poverty, which was selected by the Backbench Business Committee. I do not agree with her about the reasons people are accessing food banks, of which there are many, but the points she wishes to raise could legitimately be raised in that debate.

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

May I express my personal sadness at the loss of Paul Goggins, with whom I worked closely on the Intelligence and Security Committee over the past three years? He was a patriotic humanitarian who reflected the greatest credit on the Labour party and on Parliament.

May we have a statement from a Defence Minister on the slow progress of the sale of the freehold of Marchwood military port in my constituency for not very much money and possibly to a company, Associated British Ports, that poses a threat to the New Forest with its burgeoning plans to build a container port on the edge of that precious area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that a commitment was made in the strategic defence and security review to sell Marchwood sea mounting centre during the current spending review period. The intention is to grant a long-term concession that will include the sale of a lease for the port and the delivery of sea mounting services. That will ensure that the military requirement can still be met, while allowing greater economic and commercial benefit to be realised from the site. A concession will be granted only if the Ministry of Defence is satisfied that it represents good value for money. On timing, a prior information notice was published on 29 November last year to initiate a market engagement process. Twenty-five parties have shown an interest in participating, although clearly we cannot identify who they are. The intention is to begin the formal sale process in the spring of this year.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disgraceful sentence of 12 months, suspended for three years, handed out to a terrorist involved in the despicable murder of two young soldiers in my constituency? That has outraged my constituents, and I believe it is worthy of debate in the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I can understand how the hon. Gentleman feels about these issues, but if I may say so, generally speaking I do not think it is appropriate for the House to debate individual sentences. That would be a constitutional intrusion by the legislature into decisions made by the judiciary. However, it is appropriate for him to raise the matter, and if he wishes to do so again my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will reply to questions next Wednesday.

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

The UK is currently among the fastest-growing economies in the western world, mainly due to the Government’s tough economic decisions. By contrast, the French socialist economic model that the leader of the Labour party so vehemently supports is crippling its country, with rising unemployment and a probable triple-dip recession. May we have a statement comparing the recent performance of the UK and French economies, which I am afraid would turn into a French tragedy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Comparisons are of course odious, but I would say two things. First, I was interested to see the Centre for Economic and Business Research’s annual review of the world economic league, published on Boxing day. Among other things, it said that the United Kingdom was the west’s second best performing economy after the United States, and that by 2030 it was likely to overtake Germany and become the largest western European economy. That was partly attributed to its being a relatively low-tax economy. By contrast, the CEBR saw France moving to about 13th position in the world economic league by that point—that is only its view, not mine. Secondly, we have to ask the Leader of the Opposition, who said that what President Hollande was doing for France, Labour would do for Britain, whether the Labour party continues to adhere to that philosophy.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Constantini family, in my constituency, recently fled Syria, where they had lived for many years. In normal circumstances, as refugees, their children would be granted home student status for fees. Unfortunately, or fortunately for them, the Constantinis are British citizens, and as such they fail to meet the residency requirement. I am sure the Leader of the House will share my concern about the fact that, unlike other refugees from Syria, British citizens appear to be disadvantaged in that circumstance. I wrote to both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Home Office about 10 days before Christmas, and I have yet to receive a response. I would be grateful if he looked into the matter and tried to see that justice is done for people who have fled the conflict in Syria.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course, as I always seek to do, try to expedite a helpful response from both Departments to which the hon. Gentleman has written.

It is as well for the House continuously to recognise how we as a country are leading the way in helping Syrians suffering from the humanitarian crisis. Although we contribute in many ways, including by seeking to protect humanitarian convoys taking aid into Syria, there are of course refugees. In the year up to September, we accepted more than 1,100 Syrian asylum claims made in this country in the usual way.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I say how much I will miss Paul Goggins in the House? He was not only one of the most able people in Parliament but, crucially, he was also one of the nicest. I will miss him greatly.

I understand that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are conniving to prevent the European Union (Referendum) Bill—so expertly steered through this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)—from coming into law. If they are successful in blocking the Bill going through the House of Lords in this Session, as they seem to intend, will the Leader of the House introduce a carry-over motion to allow the Bill to be taken forward in the next Session?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, not least about our former colleague. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the European Union (Referendum) Bill, but also recognise that it has responsibility to consider it timeously—[Interruption.] Timeously; it is a perfectly normal word, I think—in good time. The Lords should consider the Bill so that it can be passed in this Session of Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Timely!”] Hon. Members must not make me laugh; it makes me cough. Not least, the will of this House must be respected. My recollection is that the Bill passed Third Reading in this House by 304 votes to nil, which I think was a powerful expression of its view.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that he was very concerned about fixed odds betting terminals. He also stated that a report would be coming forward in the spring, which I understand is March and April, according to sources. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that when that report comes forward, it will be in spring and that the House will debate it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I think that issue was fully covered by the debate yesterday.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am proud to be part of a parliamentary party that is seeking to legislate to let Britain decide through the European Union (Referendum) Bill. In the meantime, may we have a debate about greater EU democracy, and in particular the idea that the UK should directly elect its commissioner?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I fully agree with him about giving the British people a say. Given the particular circumstances of this year, I do not think it possible to contemplate what he proposes for the nomination of the next European commissioner. Speaking at the Dispatch Box it is probably sensible for me to say that I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that the Prime Minister is not best placed to make a decision about who our next commissioner should be.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May I declare an interest as a patron of Gate Safe, for which there is no financial remuneration? Gate Safe was set up following a number of deaths of children, including Karolina Golabek in my constituency. It was to ensure the safety of electronic gates across the industry, which had led to the crushing to death of a number of children. Today I have been contacted by a company that has had its invoice rejected because it followed Gate Safe’s standards, which were said to be merely an attempt to increase prices. May we have a debate on how we can ensure that industry-wide accepted standards can be enforced when it comes to paying bills?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and if I may I will raise that issue on her behalf with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. There may be a case for a debate, but it may be that my colleagues can take action to help the hon. Lady.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

At the end of this month the Transport Minister will unveil the next generation of Thameslink trains, delivered as part of the £6.5 billion Thameslink programme. Although that will be welcomed in my Hendon constituency and other parts of the country, it comes at a price. May we have a debate to look at rail fares, and consider how the programme has been delivered at the same time as the Government have limited the cap on average regulated rail fare increases to RPI for 2014, and see what further action the Government can take to keep rail fares down?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad my hon. Friend raises the Thameslink programme, which is part of the Government’s long-term strategy to transform the rail network. He and other Members will know that this is the most significant investment in rail since the 19th century. However, for all its benefits in terms of capacity and reduced journey times there is an implication for underlying costs to the system, which is why we have to look constantly at protecting the families and hard-working people who use the railways and why we have reduced the average regulated fare rise to RPI—to which he referred. We will continue to look at that. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I can promise that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport will continue to look at how we can reduce underlying costs to protect those who are necessary rail users.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

This week my constituents Mr and Mrs Mann were refused medication for their baby Harley by a supermarket pharmacist because the directions to the parents written by the GP were in Welsh. A greater proportion of public services are now being delivered by private organisations from outside Wales, so may we have a debate on those organisations’ adherence to the principles and requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993?

[Mr Lansley]

This comes a short while after the sad death of Wyn Roberts, who was such a passionate advocate of the Welsh Language Act and the use of the Welsh language in services, which we have to ensure is maintained. I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that the intentions of the Act are being seen through.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a debate on effective political representation? The Leader of the House will notice that, while we have the honourable presence of Members from minority parties in the Chamber, there are no Back-Bench Members from the Liberal Democrat party in their place. They apparently have no interest whatever in the future business of the House, and there were no Liberal Democrat Members present at the important debate in Westminster Hall on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration just before Christmas. Is it true that the Liberal Democrats have passed a new year’s resolution to take Thursdays off? Is it not clear that there is very little point in people voting for Liberal Democrats, because they do not turn up and represent them?

[Mr Lansley]

I hear what my hon. Friend has to say. I take an alternative construction, which is to say that Members of the Liberal Democrat party are, as part of this coalition Government, so content with the proposals for business, as brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the House and me, that they do not see any need to question them.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

We have learned in the past 24 hours through leaks to the media that the Cabinet Office has accelerated the withdrawal of the Government Digital Service from the universal credit programme. On a point of order yesterday, I inquired whether the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), would be making a statement to the House. I was therefore surprised to see him making a statement on ITN news last night, not in this House. I was not surprised when he said that the implementation of universal credit had been lamentable and that money had been wasted, but is it not discourteous of him to have made the statement to the media last night? When will he make a statement to this House on the role of the Cabinet Office on universal credit?

[Mr Lansley]

No, there was no discourtesy involved. The ministerial code is clear that when Parliament is sitting Ministers should make announcements of policy to this House first. The Minister for the Cabinet Office made no announcement of policy; he was simply reiterating the fact, which I told the House a few moments ago, that it was always the intention for the Government Digital Service to transfer responsibility to the Department for Work and Pensions’ digital team.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I was visited by two constituents late last year who adopted their children in 2005. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a statement to explain why children adopted before 1 January 2006 do not qualify for the pupil premium, whereas those adopted since then do?

[Mr Lansley]

As ever, my hon. Friend is assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents. The Government took the decision to link eligibility for the pupil premium to adoptions under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which was implemented on 30 December 2005, to ensure consistency with the Government’s policy on priority school admissions for children adopted from care, and in the light of the need to balance competing funding priorities during the current difficult economic climate. The criteria for the pupil premium are reviewed annually. As part of that process, the Government will revisit the decision to limit access to the pupil premium to adoptions under the 2002 Act in time for the 2015-16 financial year.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the use of non-custodial sentences for serious offences? The public are rightly questioning why some people found guilty of very serious and violent crimes are avoiding prison. Victims of crime need confidence that those guilty of serious crimes will be properly punished, but there is growing concern that one reason for the many non-custodial sentences is cost.

[Mr Lansley]

The issue that the hon. Lady raises is one about which we all feel strongly. I remind her, however, that the sentencing regime we had was substantially inherited from the Labour Government. We have taken action to improve the very things people are concerned about. For example, if someone commits a serious crime under this Government, they are nearly 10% more likely to go to prison than in the last full year of the Labour Administration, and the average sentence for sexual offences is nearly one year longer than it was in 2008 under Labour and two years longer than it was in 2002.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a pastor in the Central African Republic describing the entire destruction of his village and the slaughter of many innocent men, women and children. This is occurring in many communities across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has already rightly talked about the brave involvement of the French and other forces there doing important work, but may we have a debate on the speed of the UN’s reaction and the implementation of its responsibility to protect? Sometimes I feel it is too slow to respond.

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat what I have said previously, but in the light of the points that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) have made, I will talk to Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who fully share the concerns of the House and are working with our partners, pressing for the political progress necessary, including the implementation of the agreement in April. Time is not on our side, and our concerns increase day by day.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I say how much I will miss Paul Goggins? I was looking forward to working with him this year on holding the Government to account on the promises they made to mesothelioma sufferers in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—an issue that I know was very dear to his heart.

Has the Leader of the House seen The Times’ letters page, particularly the letter from the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, who complains that in interviews this week the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has responsibility for legal aid, has exaggerated barristers’ average earnings by more than 300%? Is not the problem that, while making the biggest attack on the criminal justice system in a generation, the Government have allowed no legislative time or debate? Will the Justice Secretary now table a debate in Government time so that at least we can get to the bottom of some of these dodgy statistics?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friends would never use dodgy statistics. At nearly £2 billion a year, ours is one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world. I understood there to be consensus across political parties that savings needed to be made. That is why we are taking these steps. Previously, the Leader of the Opposition said that his party supported cuts in the legal aid budget. If he and his hon. Friends are changing their position, it would be helpful if they would explain how they would pay for it. It is of course open to the Opposition—and to the hon. Gentleman to tell his Front-Bench team this—to raise these matters: they have two Opposition days in the next two weeks, and if they wish to raise these issues, as they have done before, they can do so.

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

With the economic recovery taking hold, some businesses are now experiencing rapid growth. Oracle Finance in Knaresborough, for example, is dramatically increasing the size of its sales team. This period of the economic cycle places great pressure on companies in terms of recruitment and skills, operational issues and especially cash flow. These challenges are compounded for businesses facing particularly rapid growth, so may we please have a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on what it is doing to support companies facing such challenges?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend works hard with his local community and local businesses to stimulate the economy, which is doing very well in Harrogate and surrounding districts. We will continue to put weight behind training initiatives, including the new traineeships, the expansion of the number of apprenticeships and support for local enterprise partnerships in delivering focused training to meet the needs of employers. It is also for employers themselves to invest in training. In that respect, one of the many positive results reported in the British Chambers of Commerce economic survey for the fourth quarter of 2013, which was published this week, was that manufacturing intentions to invest in training were at their best level since the third quarter of 2007, while service sector intentions to invest in training also rose to the best level since the fourth quarter of 2007. Companies are thus seeing the intention to invest both in plant and equipment and in training for the future.

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

May we have a debate on the impact of universal credit on eligibility for other Government schemes? A recent inquiry from a heating company in my constituency to Ofgem found that people who transfer to universal credit will apparently not be eligible for energy company obligation funding, which is designed to make their homes warmer and more efficient and tackle fuel poverty. As a shadow energy Minister who represents one of the pathfinder areas for universal credit, I would be extremely concerned—as would many other Members—if that were the case, so I would welcome any clarification that the Leader of the House could obtain for me. It seems yet again that with this Government and universal credit, no one really knows what is going on.

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, I think that some of the decisions about passported benefits in relation to universal credit have been very clear. If I may, however, I will inquire further with my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions on the hon. Gentleman’s particular question. It is, of course, open to him to raise the issue with Ministers when they respond to parliamentary questions on Monday.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Has the Leader of the House seen the recent BBC report showing that councils in England are holding £1.5 billion in unspent section 106 moneys, which are funds paid by developers for community projects when planning permissions are granted? In some cases, failure to spend the money has meant that councils have handed it back to developers. At a time when budgets for councils are particularly tight, people will find it hard to understand that money is being wasted in this way, so could we have a debate to consider the matter further?

[Mr Lansley]

I did see the BBC survey, albeit not in detail. I shall ask my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond to my hon. Friend in detail, but it is important to recognise the benefit that the community infrastructure levy will bring in relation to future practice, as compared to section 106 agreements in the past.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

International women’s day is on 8 March. At a time when the women of the world do two thirds of the world’s work and earn only 10% of its income, when rape is used daily as a weapon of war and when the Prime Minister admits that he has failed to reach his target for promoting women to the Cabinet, may we have a debate in Government time on international women’s day?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot at this stage clarify the arrangements for debates at or around the time of international women’s day. I hope that the hon. Lady will recall that the Government, the Opposition and the Backbench Business Committee worked well together last year to ensure that Members were provided with an opportunity to debate issues relating to women. Last year, we were able to debate particular issues such as violence against women and girls, and I know that important themes will be taken up this year, too.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 908?

[That this House is disappointed that the Co-operative Energy company has contacted its customers to say that they will be charged an extra £63 if they do not begin to pay their bills by direct debit; notes that the Government is taking measures to reduce energy bills by an average of £50; further notes that this move will hurt the poorest the most; believes that energy companies should not try to recoup this money by raising money in other areas; and calls for Co-operative Energy to treat all its customers fairly, regardless of their chosen payment method.]

It condemns the way utility companies charge extortionate rates for consumers who do not pay their bills by direct debit. One of my constituents was charged £63 by the Co-op which, amazingly, is at the lower end of the scale. Some consumers are charged as much as £100. This hurts pensioners, the poorest and the most vulnerable. May we have an urgent statement on this issue?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion, and I think that many Members will be concerned by the issue he raises. As so often, my hon. Friend identifies an issue that is of importance not only to his constituents, but to those on the lowest earnings and those most in need. I will take this issue away and discuss it with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether they can assist him in any way. We want to make sure that we do not impose the greatest costs on those who have the least.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I shall certainly sign the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), because I have been campaigning on the same topic for some time in the House. Following the power disruption over the Christmas period, may we have a statement, or indeed a debate, about the power distribution companies? Many of them are making huge profits and pushing consumer prices up, but they did not provide adequate cover over Christmas, and numerous households have suffered as a consequence.

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is currently undertaking a review. We hope that within two months we shall see a report on people’s experiences over the last few weeks of the storms and the response to them by the power companies, not just in relation to reconnections, but more especially—given the sentiments that were expressed in the House on Monday—in relation to the extent to which the companies communicated with customers. I should add, however, that when I was in Anglesey on the Thursday and Friday after Christmas our power was off for 16 hours, and I thought that it was reconnected reasonably promptly.

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

As my right hon. Friend may know, Plymouth’s truly excellent Theatre Royal, which is in my constituency, is one of only five production companies in the United Kingdom, and the principal theatre in the south-west. Shortly before Christmas, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published its response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report on creative industries. May we please have a debate, in Government time, on the coalition’s arts policy and on regional arts funding?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very glad to acknowledge the excellent work of the Theatre Royal in Plymouth, for which the Government provide more than £1 million a year via Arts Council England. We also support Attik Dance Ltd, the Institute of Digital Art and Technology, the Plymouth Arts Centre and the Barbican theatre, all of which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

The issue of the distribution of arts funding is inevitably complex, but the Arts Council is seeking to achieve a better balance between public funding and lottery investment throughout the country. I cannot promise a debate at present, but other Members may share my hon. Friend’s interest in the issue, and may wish to ask the Backbench Business Committee to allocate time for a debate on it. My hon. Friend will recall that the Opposition Front Bench chose arts and the creative industries as the subject of a debate in the middle of last year.

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

May I appeal to the Leader of the House not to allow any further debates on the commemoration of the first world war? I am sure that much of the nation has been appalled by attempts to politicise the event over the past week, and by the unedifying trench warfare that has emerged between the Government and the Labour Front Bench. May I appeal to both Front Benches to cool it, to show some dignity and respect, and to ensure that the centenary is marked sensitively and with decorum?

[Mr Lansley]

I felt that the debate that took place in the House late last year exemplified the importance of commemorating the events of 100 years ago. Although I cannot confirm that there are plans for another debate on the subject, I can say that there is probably a case for further such debates in the future.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Over the last year unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 25%, from 903 to 682. May we have a debate in which we can consider the policies that have delivered such a spectacular result, and ensure that we continue those policies in order to build on it?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the figures cited by my hon. Friend are testimony not only to the achievements of businesses in his constituency, but to the effectiveness of the long-term economic plan that the coalition is pursuing. Flexible labour markets are also important. There have been widespread pressures on many economies throughout the world, some of which have manifested themselves in rapidly rising unemployment. The fact that we in this country have been able to produce 1.6 million extra private sector jobs is testimony to the fact that we have been prepared to make difficult decisions in controlling public sector expenditure and the reduction of public sector jobs, and maintaining a flexible labour market.

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

Members who have walked through New Palace Yard in recent weeks will have noticed a large number of ministerial cars sitting with their engines running for up to an hour at a time. Not only is that an absurd waste of taxpayers’ money, but it sets an incredibly bad example in the context of climate change. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Department for Transport to announce to all drivers, and confirm to the House, that the practice will cease, given that it is bad for both the environment and the taxpayer?

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess that I had not particularly noticed that, although I spend a lot of time in New Palace yard coming and going, but I will talk to the Department for Transport, which is responsible for the Government Car Service, and see what its view of this is.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

When meeting with the Education Committee before Christmas the Education Secretary gave a commitment to publish the impact assessment on the cut in funding for 18-year-olds. This commitment was reiterated by Ministers at the Dispatch Box on Monday. Having checked with the Vote Office and Committee members, it is my understanding that that still has not been published. One would think that at the time of making a decision the impact assessment would be available. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the impact of this decision to damage the education of 18-year-olds?

[Mr Lansley]

I was in the House and I heard what was said and I will ask the Department when it intends to publish in the way proposed.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s relationship with their public health responsibility deal partners, and not just on alcohol pricing and the issue about sugar, which was raised earlier today? An authoritative report was published last year about the link between fast food consumption and childhood asthma, yet the public health Minister has said that she sees no reason to discuss that with the companies that are responsibility deal partners. If they are not there to discuss issues like that with the Government, what are they there for?

[Mr Lansley]

I am responsible for establishing the responsibility deal, which is there for the Government to work together with health organisations and experts and the industry in order to improve public health. There is a programme of measures under the responsibility deal. That is why the issue of sugar is coming forward. We took action on salt and on fast food with the publication of calorie data—there has been an enormous increase in the visibility of calorie information on fast food and at food outlets on the high street. The hon. Lady’s response may simply reflect the fact that this is not intended to be a wide-ranging debate on all issues relating to public health; it is a focused agenda agreed between the parties.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Chancellor’s failed bank levy, which we now discover has fallen £2 billion short of what it was supposed to collect at a time when the Chancellor is speaking with relish about taking billions of pounds off the most sick and disabled people in this country? Is it not typical that it is not those with the broadest shoulders who get targeted; it is those who are limping already?

[Mr Lansley]

My recollection is that in the autumn statement the Chancellor further increased the contribution from banks through a special levy, but, to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I have announced that the Opposition are intending to have a debate on issues relating to banking next Wednesday during which he will no doubt have an opportunity to make his point and hear the reply.

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

This week Russia blocked a UN Security Council statement condemning the Syrian Government for their use of air strikes against civilians in Aleppo. The House last debated Syria in August last year, and an oral statement was provided in October last year. When might we expect a debate in Government time on the issue of Syria?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will just say that I expect that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will update the House shortly on the situation in Syria. I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we have regularly kept the House informed and we will do so again soon.

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

As reported in the media last weekend, TPIM—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—orders on all individuals will end this month because of the way the legislation was drafted. May we have an urgent statement about what the Government’s approach will be to these individuals who will be in our communities without any restrictions, rather than read about it in the weekend papers?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to respond directly to the hon. Lady and, if necessary, to inform the House.

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

Mr Speaker, I am sure that the whole House was pleased when you chose to grant the urgent question on the written statement on the provisional local government finance settlement, which was put before the House very late on 18 December. Given the scale, pace and deep unfairness of the cuts in many areas of the country, will the Leader of the House confirm that when the final settlement is announced, there will be a proper oral statement in the House so that Members will have the opportunity to question it.

[Mr Lansley]

The publication of the provisional local government finance settlement by means of a written ministerial statement was not unprecedented; that has happened before, including under the last Government. My recollection is that it would be virtually unprecedented for the final settlement to be the subject of an oral statement, although it will be the subject of a written ministerial statement at the very least.

Welsh Grand Committee

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That

(1) the matter of—

(a) the Autumn Statement as it relates to Wales, and

(b) the Government Response to Part I of the Commission on Devolution in Wales

be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster at 9.30am and 2.00pm—

(a) on Wednesday 22 January to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1)(a);

(b) on Wednesday 5 February to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1)(b); and

(3) on each such day, the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement.

The House will recall that Standing Order No. 108 specifies that a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for the Welsh Grand Committee to sit on specified days at Westminster or in Wales, at such hours as may be specified. The motion will allow the Welsh Grand Committee to meet twice in the next month to consider the autumn statement as it affects Wales and, separately, the Government’s response to part I of the Commission on Devolution in Wales. The sittings will take place on Wednesday 22 January and Wednesday 5 February at Westminster. They have been proposed in consultation with the Opposition and Plaid Cymru.

The timing of the second sitting has been scheduled with the intention of informing the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee as it undertakes pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Wales Bill. The House will recall that the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement on 18 November. The draft Bill was subsequently published on 18 December, following publication of the UK Government response to the Silk commission’s first report on the devolution of tax and borrowing powers to the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government. The House will further recall that the UK Government agreed to almost all the recommendations, in whole or in part.

The Welsh Affairs Committee will take evidence on the draft Wales Bill this month, including at an oral evidence session on Tuesday 14 January. The Committee has set a deadline for written submissions of Thursday 16 January. It is the intention of the Committee to report in late March on the two main areas of the Bill—the devolution of taxation and borrowing powers, and the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales. A meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in the form proposed in the motion and focused on the devolution of taxation and borrowing powers will enable it to inform the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.

The two sittings will be the 10th and 11th Welsh Grand Committee sittings held during this Parliament. Since the 2010 general election, the Welsh Grand Committee has debated Budgets, Queen’s Speeches, the Commission on Devolution in Wales, legislative programmes, energy matters and the comprehensive spending review. The 2013 autumn statement and the draft Wales Bill can now be added to that long list. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

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

I have spoken to the Leader of the House on several occasions about my concerns over the environmental statement on HS2 that has been issued by the Department for Transport. The fact that it is tens of thousands of pages long is putting great strain on our environmental organisations, because the Department has given them only eight weeks over the Christmas period in which to respond to it. Furthermore, the memory sticks containing those tens of thousands of pages had to be recalled because of omissions and errors, and new ones had to be issued. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the possibility of extending the consultation period immediately?

[Mr Lansley]

I know how assiduously my right hon. Friend is pursuing the interests of her constituents in relation to this matter. I am not in a position to extend the period as she requests, not least because the 56-day consultation period for the environmental statement that precedes the production of a report by the person appointed by the House was determined not by the Department for Transport but by the House, by means of orders made in June relating to changes in the Standing Orders covering hybrid Bills.

[Official Report, 19 December 2013, Vol. 572, c. 898.]

Letter of correction from Mr Lansley:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Lansley]

I know how assiduously my right hon. Friend is pursuing the interests of her constituents in relation to this matter. I am not in a position to extend the period as she requests. The minimum 56-day consultation period for the environmental statement that precedes the production of a report by the person appointed by the House was determined by the House, by means of orders made in June relating to changes in the Standing Orders covering hybrid Bills.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I am still reeling at the implications of the offer made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

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

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

The business for the week commencing 6 January 2014 is as follows:

Monday 6 January—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.

Tuesday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 8 January— Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 9 January—General debate on rural communities, followed by general debate on inter-city rail investment. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 10 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 January will include:

Monday 13 January—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 23 January 2014 will be:

Thursday 23 January—A debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the FCO’s human rights work in 2012, followed by a debate on the second report of the Select Committee on International Development on violence against women and girls.

I would also like to inform colleagues that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the date of the Budget statement will be Wednesday 19 March 2014.

May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to wish you and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? On behalf of the whole House, I should especially also like to thank all the staff of the House, who have kept the House and us running smoothly—the Doorkeepers, the Clerks, the cleaners, the officers and all those working in the House Service. We wish a happy and peaceful Christmas to one and all.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the first week back in the new year.

It has been reported that the Prime Minister told the 1922 committee yesterday that he is ready to take the extremely rare step of using the Parliament Acts to ensure that a Back-Bench private Member’s Bill makes it on to the statute book. Does the Leader of the House know whether the Liberal Democrat part of the Government supports that plan and could it proceed without the Liberal Democrats?

The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill returned to the other place this week after the Leader of the House’s six-week panic pause, but despite an on-the-record promise that the Government would use the pause to complete wide consultation and try to address the concerns of charities and campaigners, the Bill remains unamended and there is little evidence that the Government have listened to anyone at all. Will the Leader of the House tell us what he has been up to for the last six weeks, and why he is continuing to ignore the broad coalition of charities and campaigners who are telling him that this bad Bill will have a chilling effect on our democratic debate? May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman spend his Christmas break pausing, listening, reflecting and improving his approach to legislation?

Talking of legislation in a rush, the first thing we discuss on our return in the new year will be the Water Bill. Will the Leader of the House clarify what has happened to the Government’s proposed plans to crack down on rising water bills, and will he explain why none has been included in the legislation? Does he agree with the Opposition view that we should create a national affordability scheme, ensuring access to a social tariff for all? Given that, so far, only three of the 20 water companies have created a social tariff for those who struggle to pay, does he agree that a weakly worded letter to water companies from the Secretary of State is simply not good enough when people are struggling with a cost of living crisis this Christmas?

At this time of year, there is nothing better than sitting in front of the fire with a good read. This year, my recommended stocking filler is the Conservative party’s 2014 “campaign toolkit”. Rather than 50 shades of grey, there are apparently only three shades of grey approved for use in Tory literature. Strangely, there are only three approved photos of the Prime Minister, too. I assume that that is to prevent anyone accidentally using a photo of his second cousin nine generations removed—Catherine the Great, to whom he bears such an eerie resemblance! Catherine the Great was an enlightened despot who became less enlightened and more despotic the older she got, so perhaps the family traits do not just end with appearance.

On page 12, under the revealing title “Out of date visual identity”, we learn that blue sky has been banished because sunshine no longer rules the day. It was not just sunshine that the Tories confined to history in 2013—it was the Prime Minister’s hollow claim to be a moderniser. He used to tell us that we were “all in it together”, but this year we got a tax cut for millionaires while real wages fell by more than £360. He used to tell us that he would fight for a new politics, but all we have had is Lynton Crosby and his politics of fear and smear. The Prime Minister used to tell us he was a compassionate Conservative, but he gave us the bedroom tax, the closure of hundreds of Sure Start centres and yesterday his MPs laughed and jeered as we debated the record numbers of people forced to turn to food banks to feed themselves and their families in Tory Britain. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that no matter how many PR makeovers they indulge in, the Tories will never change?

Given that this is our last sitting day before the Christmas recess, I want to take the opportunity to wish all right hon. and hon. Members and their families, all of the House staff and their families, you and your family, Mr Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I have been considering what it would be like if the Cabinet had Christmas dinner together. First of all, everyone would be late because they had spent their journey arguing about the route and U-turning so often that they were driving round in circles. The turkey would be half-cooked, like their policies, and the Leader of the House would have to call for a pause halfway through the meal. The Prime Minister’s lapdog, the Deputy Prime Minister, would be encouraged to learn that election promises are for life, not just for Christmas. Perhaps the joke in the Christmas crackers would simply read, “Vote Lib Dem”.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement and, in particular, for her Christmas good wishes to Members and House staff. She only slightly raided the Christmas crackers in advance with her comments today.

The hon. Lady asked about the private Member’s Bill relating to the EU referendum, which is in the House of Lords. The issue would arise only if the Lords were not to pass it, and my hope is that their Lordships will recognise the support that the Bill attracted from this House. From memory, I think that there was a majority of some 200 in favour of Third Reading in the House of Commons. I think that that should serve as an indication to the House of Lords of the positive sentiment that was attached to the proposal for an EU referendum when it left this House.

The hon. Lady asked about the transparency Bill. Clearly she has not taken on board how often the House of Lords considers legislation. Their Lordships frequently deal with the Committee stages of Bills, but in this case neither the Government nor others who had tabled amendments pressed those amendments to a vote, because they wanted to discuss some issues on Report in the context of Government amendments. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness made it clear to the House of Lords that a wide-ranging consultation had indeed taken place, and emphasised the benefit that will, I know, be apparent when the Lords consider the Bill on Report.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Water Bill, which, as she said, we will debate when we return in the new year. I look forward to that debate, because I think it will show that we can increase benefits to consumers in two main ways: by giving them access to more competition in the water industry, and by giving those who are at risk of flooding access to a continuing and secure scheme for the delivery of flood insurance. As for the question of tariffs, the hon. Lady should bear in mind the work that the regulator is doing with the water companies to try to ensure that, in the next period of regulation, they deliver the best possible benefits and value for money to consumers. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change supports that work.

I am sad to have to tell the hon. Lady that I am not responsible at this Dispatch Box for what the Conservative party has put in its 2014 “campaign toolkit”. [Interruption.] I may not be sad, but if the hon. Lady is really going to read that on Christmas Day, I fear that she is rather sad. I confess that I shall not be reading it. I should add that when the hon. Lady reached the point of comparing the Prime Minister to Catherine the Great, I felt that it was a case of “more desperate than despot”.

In this season of good will, I think that I should conclude with good news. Growth in the economy is 1.5% higher than it was a year ago, and retail sales are up. We are net exporters of cars, and the automotive industry produced more cars in the first 11 months of this year than it did in the previous 12. Manufacturing and services are up. Moreover, 2.7 million people have been taken out of income tax altogether, and every basic rate taxpayer can look forward to a benefit of at least £700 after next April. Fuel duty has been frozen, unemployment is down, and employment in the private sector is up by more than 1.6 million. There are fewer workless households than at any time since records began. That, I think, is a source of good cheer for Christmas present and hope for Christmas future—and I am afraid that, for the Opposition, it means no return to their Christmas past.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what the Government can do to protect people—especially the elderly and disabled—who are disadvantaged by having no access to, or ability to use, the internet in order to obtain the best prices for financial, insurance and other services?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me add another item to my hon. Friend’s list. Access to NHS services for those who do not have internet access is also very important. It was certainly very important to me when, as Secretary of State for Health, I was involved in the delivery of patient choice and information through NHS Choices.

We will do all that we can to protect vulnerable people by helping those who are offline to gain access to online services. We will increase access to the internet, improve digital skills, and ensure that people are aware of the benefits that going online can bring. A new cross-Government digital inclusion team has been established in the Cabinet Office as part of the Government Digital Service with the aim of driving forward the digital inclusion agenda, and we plan to publish a digital inclusion strategy early in the spring. Given my hon. Friend’s interest in these matters, he may wish to meet the Cabinet Office team to explain how he feels his constituents could benefit from the strategy.

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

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all hon. and right hon. Members a very merry Christmas?

When we return in the new year, the Backbench Business Committee will be taking part in a pilot scheme allocating a 90-minute Westminster Hall slot—which is currently allocated by you, Mr Speaker—every Tuesday from 9.30 until 11 am. Will the Leader of the House help me to advertise this to as many hon. and right hon. Members as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, of course, I would be delighted to do that and I look forward to having opportunities to do so. If that can be anticipated, we might look to see whether it can be added to the advertisement of the debates to Members through the business statement.

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

On behalf of my Select Committee, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House and the staff and everybody else for all their work this year?

I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward the Water Bill on the first day back. There is currently an omission in the Bill, however, concerning something that many constituencies have suffered from: the surface water run-off going into combined sewers. Will my right hon. Friend explain why we have not had a clear business week to allow us to table amendments in the usual way? You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that the Select Committee has tabled amendments, but we have not been able to do as thorough a job as we might otherwise have done.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will have a discussion with my hon. Friend about how we can ensure that if she and other Members have, during the passage of the Water Bill, a desire to table amendments, there is provision for them to do so.

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

May we have an urgent statement on EU membership and immigration, but this time can we have it from the person at the Dispatch Box who is actually pulling the strings of the Conservative party and setting the agenda, which can only be Nigel Farage?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman is living in some kind of fantasy world. I can assure him that Nigel Farage is not pulling the strings. If I may revert to being a constituency Member of Parliament for this purpose, I take particular pleasure in the fact that before the last county council elections there was one UKIP county councillor in South Cambridgeshire and after it there were none.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

During 13 years of Labour misrule, things got worse and worse. Under this coalition, things have got better and better. Under Labour England lost 21 times to Australia and lost five series, despite what the shadow Leader said last week. Under this coalition Government, we have won more than we have lost, and we have won two series. Is not the truth that the only way we are going to regain the Ashes is by having a Tory Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to admire my hon. Friend’s optimism in trying to derive a good story out of the English team’s performance in Australia, and I hope he will be proved right in the fullness of time, in the same way as in the fullness of time we have always discovered that unemployment is higher when a Labour Government leave office than when they take office. Under this coalition Government employment has increased and unemployment has decreased.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday Commissioner Potocnik released the clean air programme for Europe. It announced tightening of the NOx and SOx—nitrous oxides and sulphur oxides— regulations for air quality, quite against what the Government had assumed, which was that they were going to be relaxed. May we have a debate on this matter in Government time, given that the Government are now facing serious infraction proceedings, to ensure we have the air quality in this country that we need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there will be questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Thursday after the House returns. He might wish to raise that important and interesting matter at that time, and I will ask the Secretary of State to respond to him.

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

I have spoken to the Leader of the House on several occasions about my concerns over the environmental statement on HS2 that has been issued by the Department for Transport. The fact that it is tens of thousands of pages long is putting great strain on our environmental organisations, because the Department has given them only eight weeks over the Christmas period in which to respond to it. Furthermore, the memory sticks containing those tens of thousands of pages had to be recalled because of omissions and errors, and new ones had to be issued. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the possibility of extending the consultation period immediately?[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 2MC.]

[Mr Lansley]

I know how assiduously my right hon. Friend is pursuing the interests of her constituents in relation to this matter. I am not in a position to extend the period as she requests, not least because the 56-day consultation period for the environmental statement that precedes the production of a report by the person appointed by the House was determined not by the Department for Transport but by the House, by means of orders made in June relating to changes in the Standing Orders covering hybrid Bills.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the business in Westminster Hall on 23 January? He has set down only half the afternoon for a debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights. That is completely inadequate for a debate on human rights around the whole world, the UK’s role in upholding them and the Foreign Office’s responsibility for them. It is simply not proper to try to debate all that in one and a half hours; we need at least a full afternoon or a debate in this Chamber.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the time in Westminster Hall on that Thursday was allocated on the initiative of the Liaison Committee. If that debate were to show that there was a demand among Members for additional debating time, it would be open to him and other Members collectively to go to the Backbench Business Committee and to seek to secure a further debate.

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

May we have a debate about the increase in the number of apprenticeships and the fall in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, under this Government? In my constituency, the number of apprenticeships has increased from 420 in 2009-10 to more than 1,000 last year. At the same time, the claimant count has fallen from 3.2% to 2.4% and, for 18 to 24-year-olds, from 7.1% to 4.4%.

[Mr Lansley]

None of us is remotely content with the level of youth unemployment, but, happily, the latest figures have shown that the level has been reduced by 19,000 on the quarter. The youth claimant count has gone down 106,000 since the election, and the number of young people not in employment, education or training is at its lowest for a decade. My hon. Friend is right to say that apprenticeships are terribly important from this point of view, with 1.5 million starts since the election. It is our objective that they, together with work experience and the new traineeships, will ensure that all young people acquire qualifications and experience through education, work, apprenticeships or traineeships.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Rail overcrowding is so acute in my constituency that Northern Rail is laying on buses to take passengers by road when they cannot get on the trains, and I know of at least one constituent who has been hospitalised after being overcome in the crush. Please may we have an urgent statement and debate on the Government’s plans for diesel and electric rolling stock in the north of England?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady has just missed Transport questions—[Hon. Members: “She was here.”] I beg her pardon. I did not mean that she was not here. I meant that she did not get her question in—[Hon. Members: “She did.”] Oh, I apologise. If she has asked that question, she has, from a business point of view, already had a chance to raise it. [Hon. Members: “She wants a better answer.”] My answer would be to draw her attention to the unprecedented £38 billion of investment that is being provided through Network Rail, which is increasing capacity on the railway system across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that repetition of points in the Chamber is not an entirely novel phenomenon.

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

We have already had a question about broadband, but I wonder whether I may ask the Leader of the House about it too. We had an announcement last week about broadband throughout the UK and the extra money that is being made available. This issue affects every constituency, throughout the UK. Because we still have anomalies in cities, towns and rural areas, may we have time in this Chamber to allow Members to discuss the problems in their constituencies relating to the roll-out of broadband throughout the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that, given the widespread interest among Members in the roll-out of broadband across the country, this may be a subject that he and other Members collectively wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee about? I thought last week’s announcements were very positive. With Connecting Cambridgeshire, in my constituency, we are looking forward to having 98% superfast broadband coverage by the end of 2015, and that is very encouraging.

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

May we have an urgent statement on Government secrecy, given that they are still refusing to release the document they commissioned on food banks, that they will not give any information on the financial position of the NHS trusts, and that they are refusing to release the Shrewsbury documents, citing “national security”? What happened to transparency?

[Mr Lansley]

This is the most open and transparent Government ever. We are publishing more data about more of the activities of government than has ever been the case. We are not only publishing what is available, but, increasingly, we are making sure that we genuinely audit the outcomes of what we are doing and publish those results.

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

May I wish you and your family a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker? This weekend, I attended the deployed service families Christmas party in Plymouth, and may I take the opportunity to wish them all a very merry Christmas, too? I was reminded that stepchildren of service families are not treated in the same way as blood relatives or adopted children, and they often have to deal with some of the emotional issues that many of their stepbrothers and stepsisters also have to deal with, especially at this time. May we have a debate on the involvement of stepfamilies in the armed forces?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the definition of a child of service personnel is

“a legitimate or legitimated child or step-child”

of a service family who is below the age of 18. Under departmental regulations both are treated equally. If he has a specific example of unfair treatment that he wishes to raise, the best thing would be to raise it directly with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans. I know that she will be happy to look into any matter that he raises.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I not only extend the season’s greetings to you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House, hon. Members and House staff, but pay tribute to our emergency services for the work they do over this period and the work they have done all year? On those services, the Leader of the House will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) ask in Transport questions about the under-resourcing of coastguards and marine safety. Is it not time that we debated the issue in this House, following the debacle in 2010-11, so that we can deal with that under-resourcing? Marine safety is far too important to be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury.

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed hear that question, and I heard the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and his explanation of how this programme was being rolled out in the way that was anticipated from 2011. I know how carefully the hon. Gentleman looks after the interests of his constituents, and I will take the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend to see whether he can provide any further information.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the oversight and support given to free schools? I very much regret that on Friday last week an Education Minister in the other place announced a withdrawal of funding from the Discovery New school in my constituency, despite the fact that a new management team had just been put in place and there was a new head teacher. May we also have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure my hon. Friend knows, as do other hon. Members, that the vast majority of free schools are performing well, with three quarters of them rated good or outstanding. But he also knows that where there is failure, we will not hesitate to intervene and take action. Children must be given the education they need and deserve, no matter what type of school they attend. Since Discovery New school was placed in special measures by Ofsted in May, the Department monitored progress closely. The trust had not provided evidence that it was making the changes required to secure the long-term future of the school. As my hon. Friend said, my noble Friend Lord Nash did notify the trust that the Department would terminate its funding agreement. If I may, I will speak to my noble Friend and make sure that he has an opportunity to speak directly to my hon. Friend about the circumstances for the children. The children will be looked after as a consequence of this, but in relation to the business of the House, if my hon. Friend has any continuing concerns, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be responding to questions on Monday 6 January.

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

This Christmas children from the Central African Republic right through to the middle east will die in refugee camps. Will the Leader of the House allow us Government time to discuss their response to this humanitarian crisis?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ministerial colleagues have been at the Dispatch Box rightly updating the House on humanitarian support. I think we can take pride in the fact that this country is the most generous and active donor of humanitarian aid to those in need as a consequence of the conflict in Syria, but I will continue to keep in close contact with my hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that the House is updated.

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

May we have an urgent debate on relations between the Israelis and Palestinians in the west bank? Although we all wish the talks in America every success, there are serious issues about Palestinian olive groves being cut down and very badly polluted by sewage and industrial waste.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that the Government share his concerns about the difficulties facing Palestinian olive growers. This is a particularly sensitive issue, given that olive trees are a national symbol and the sole source of income for many Palestinian farmers. We continue to express our concerns to the Israeli Government about this and about the destruction and damage to Palestinian property, including olive trees, whether it is by the authorities or by extremist settlers. The context is, of course, the enduring tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we are doing everything we can as a Government to support efforts, including by the US Government, to achieve a lasting two-state solution.

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

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, a merry Christmas?

May we have a debate on the impact of VAT on tourism products and the local economy? In Northern Ireland, VAT on tourism is 20%. We have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, where VAT on tourism has continued to be 9%. That has placed us at an unfair competitive disadvantage.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are very aware of the importance of the tax relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I will of course raise these issues with them. She will understand how difficult it is in the EU context ever to reduce VAT rates, but that does not mean that that is the only potential source of tax competition.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said he wanted to end the year on a happy note; I would like to start next year on a happy note. May we have a debate on the success in getting the unemployment figures down? In my constituency, the figure is 385 lower than it was a year ago and 35 lower than it was in October this year.

[Mr Lansley]

I would be delighted if we had such an opportunity early in the new year. I cannot promise it immediately, but I hope that it will arise. My hon. Friend is quite right. The most recently published data show that in the east midlands, for example, the number of people unemployed has fallen by some 6,000. In many regions there have been similar substantial decreases in unemployment, which is very encouraging, and at the same time vacancies continue at a record level.

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

A constituent of mine contacted me this week to tell me that his daughter, an agency worker at the passport office in Durham, will be made redundant in the new year when her job and others will be transferred to India. It is a tragedy not only for her, but for the region, as every job in the north-east is precious. May we have a debate on the scandal of Government and Government agency jobs being transferred overseas?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course, because of the personal circumstances of the hon. Lady’s constituent, raise that with Home Office Ministers and ask them to respond to her directly. If she has any additional information, I would be happy to include it in the query. On the general point, it is encouraging that the most recent data show a reduction in unemployment in the north-east.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and happy Gita Jayanti. Yesterday we launched the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus in a packed Committee Room 14—there was literally standing room only—as hundred of Hindus from across the country came together for what was possibly the biggest ever launch of an all-party group. May we have a debate in Government time on the enormous contribution made by the 1.6 million British Hindus to the economy, the stability of our society and the fabric of Great Britain?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to raise that. I am sure that many Members across the House share his evident pleasure at the establishment of the all-party group and the fact that so many Hindus from across the country came here to celebrate it. I cannot promise a debate at the moment—he will understand the pressure on legislative time. As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, he will understand how precious its time is, too, but it might be able to give the matter the necessary priority in due course.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the House’s recesses? We talked earlier about September sittings. Is it not ludicrous that we come back for two weeks and then have the party conferences for three weeks before coming back again? May we have a debate on moving the party conferences to the early part of September so that the House can have a clear run through? And merry Christmas!

[Mr Lansley]

And a merry Christmas to the hon. Gentleman.

I do not think that the arrangement is ludicrous; it is conventional. We will take that suggestion away, as we regularly look at these matters, but I do not hold out any immediate promise to him.

[Mr Speaker]

I have always thought that the party conferences could perfectly well take place at weekends. I cannot for the life of me see why we have to go away from our main place of work for that rather self-indulgent exercise. But I would not want to express any views that could be considered to be controversial.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what constitutes “high risk” when it comes to referrals for breast cancer screening? A constituent of mine whose mother and two sisters have sadly been diagnosed with breast cancer has bizarrely not been assessed as high risk and, as a consequence, has been denied access to screening, which is causing her and her family great distress, as I am sure hon. Members would understand.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the distress it must cause. If he can provide me with further details, I will ask Health Ministers to advise on the circumstances he has brought to the House’s attention.

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

I have been a bit of a curmudgeon this morning, but I have always thought the Leader of the House a thoroughly good man. I wish for my constituents, as he will for his, the warm glow one gets from reading “A Christmas Carol”, but does he agree that a lot of people up and down this country are suffering “Hard Times”? Will he look at Angela Merkel’s remarks this week that when the income band for the rich and super-rich gets so far away from not only the poor, but average people, democracy is threatened and put in peril? May we have a serious debate on income distribution in our country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

In the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman raises this, I think we often do have that debate, and we need to do so. In what were undeniably tough times—we will not debate why they occurred; they occurred for a number of reasons—we were very clear as a coalition Government that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. That is why the top 1% in terms of income pay 30% of the tax going to the Exchequer and why the proportionate increase in tax paid is highest among those who earn the most.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the procedures that are in place to vet in advance the credentials of organisations that set up Christmas fairs and festivals? My right hon. Friend may have seen reports of the problems with Winter Wonderland in Milton Keynes last weekend. Although trading standards is now looking into it and people have been promised a refund, it left many families bitterly disappointed, and local charities that would have benefited from the fair have lost out.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right; I did indeed see the reports, because my constituency is not far from his. One of the beneficiaries would have been Papworth Trust, which is based in my constituency, so I felt precisely the sense of distress that many families felt about this. It is difficult; hard cases make bad law. The last thing we could contemplate is having some kind of regulatory process before people are able to set up such an event. However, trading standards can certainly look at the consequences and the lessons to be learned from something of the kind he describes.

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

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker.

Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proactively to come to the House to make a proper oral statement on the provisional local government finance settlement, which would see Birmingham lose spending power at about twice the national average? The Leader of the House will know that yesterday there was lot of criticism of the fact that Ministers had to be called to the House. I found out that the local authority in Birmingham was not even told about the details of the announcement until 12.33 pm —after the urgent question had started. If this House is going to debate the concerns of our constituents and local authorities, this really is not good enough. May we have a proper statement straight after Christmas?

[Mr Lansley]

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), responded to an urgent question yesterday and did so very well. As he said to the House, the information on the local government finance settlement was distributed in a way that is consistent with previous years. In fact, laying it by means of a written ministerial statement is exactly the same process as was adopted by the previous Government in the last year before the election.

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

Given the ongoing need to raise funds for the public purse, may we have a statement setting out the reasons why the Government think it is still necessary to own Channel 4?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to my hon. Friend in relation to that.

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

Police in Devon and Cornwall get less per head than those in leafy Surrey. Our transport infrastructure investment is less than that in any other part of the country, despite the problems we have with flooding on the main line. Plymouth’s public health statistics are worse than those in almost any other part of the country on a whole range of levels, yet we get only £47 per head in Plymouth compared with £77 in Portsmouth and £66 in Bristol, and Windsor and Maidenhead do infinitely better. May we have an urgent debate on the funding distribution and formula basis of all these decisions, because regionally and in Plymouth we lose out?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not go through all those things, but the hon. Lady will know of the focus being given by the Department for Transport to improving routes, including the A30 across Bodmin. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has asked questions about that and I and other Ministers have responded to them.

I held discussions with Plymouth city council two or more years ago about how actively it was considering bringing people together to promote public health in the city. As such, all local authorities have seen an increase in their allocation of public health resources.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

This evening I will attend a public meeting to discuss the recent floods in my constituency, particularly those that have affected residents in Barrow Haven who, understandably, will want some answers. Although we have had an opportunity to meet the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and there has been a written statement, as yet there has not been an oral statement or time for a debate in the House. Could the Leader of the House provide Government time for such a debate early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly raises important points on behalf of his constituents. Given that he has had a meeting with the Secretary of State, I will consult the Secretary of State on how my hon. Friend and other Members whose constituencies have been particularly affected by the recent flooding might be given further information. Given the current pressure on time, I regret that I cannot promise a debate in the House on these matters, but we will make sure that all Members are properly informed.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

One group of people who will not be having a restful Christmas are carers. The Leader of the House has given a list of ways in which life is improving under this Government, but life for carers has not improved. Their income limit has not increased and one of the carers in my constituency, Mrs James, has her income assessed on a weekly basis, because she works on a zero-hours contract. If, in one week out of four, she earns £1 over the £100 allowance, she loses her carer’s allowance for the entire month, even though her income for the rest of the month might be £25 one week and £35 the next. Instead of paying lip service to carers, could we have a genuine debate on how we can provide proper support and income for them so that they can feel valued by this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to respond to the hon. Lady on the circumstances she describes with regard to the carer’s allowance. On the more general issue, carers should understand that individual Members, the House and the Government support them. I think that is evident from our allocation of some £400 million to ensure that carers have access to more respite breaks; from the Children and Families Bill, which delivers additional support to children who are carers; from our commitment to deliver health checks and support to carers; and from all the additional carer rights in the Care Bill—the hon. Lady will no doubt take part in the debate on that—which sets out for the first time a comprehensive structure of rights for carers.

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

The cost of motoring is a significant part of household expenditure and it also has a broader economic impact, because most goods are moved by road. I recognise that there has been cross-Government action on the issue—including the cut in fuel duty, stopping the escalator and work on insurance fraud—but please could we have a debate to consider the progress made and ask what more can be done to help?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that motorists in general can take heart from the way in which the Government have ensured that additional costs are not loaded on to them. Had the previous Government still been in office, fuel duty would have been an extra 20p per litre by the end of this Parliament as a consequence of their fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken away. I also think that the work of the Office of Fair Trading on motor insurance claims offers the prospect of relief to motorists in terms of their insurance premiums, as does the Ministry of Justice’s work on the response to whiplash.

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

Further to questions on local government spending, I see that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is to be given a new role as the head of Minitrue, to guard against the risks of doublethinking in our local authorities. Given the discrepancies in the answer to yesterday’s urgent question on local government spending, might it not be an idea to start with a debate on the accuracy of answers given to Members of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government sets out to speak in plain English and in terms that are entirely accurate.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Like many councils, Stroud district council is busy formulating and agreeing our local plan, but in the meantime we are effectively circled by developers who are picking off field after field. Their plans are often rejected by the planning committee, but we are obviously open to the risk of an inspection. May we have a debate about that and about how we can assist local areas to defend themselves against unscrupulous developers?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very important to have a local plan in place, which is why it is encouraging that three quarters of authorities have now published one. In fact, just over half of them now have an adopted local plan. It is important to achieve that, so the intention of Stroud district council to submit its local plan for examination will give more weight to that plan in decision making, and help to guard against developments that are not determined locally.

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

Tech City UK has a budget, funded by the taxpayer, of just over £2 million, but it has recently been very coy about revealing exactly how it spends that money, despite being probed by Tech City News. Does the Leader of the House not agree that transparency about how taxpayers’ money is spent is vital? Will he remind Ministers to ensure that any body funded by their Department is required to be as transparent as possible about its spending?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is of course right that the principle of transparency applies and is one that we seek to pursue. If I may, I will raise that issue with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

On Tuesday night, the press were briefed about a welcome introduction of restrictions on certain benefits for immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania. Will the Leader of the House explain how this House has been informed of those restrictions, what the legislative mechanism is for their introduction, whether they include restrictions on tax credits and whether they will also apply to other EU member states?

[Mr Lansley]

The House was made aware by the fact that regulations to that effect were laid on Wednesday morning; they are subject to the negative procedure, so they can be brought into force. In that sense, they are available for the House to see, and if any hon. Member wishes to pray against them, they can be prayed against under the normal arrangements.

On my hon. Friend’s other points, I do not know that the regulations extend elsewhere or in any sense beyond this country, but the measures we have taken are informed by a great deal of work done by the Government to examine the benefit arrangements available to those who exercise their free movement rights inside the European Union. That work gives us confidence that we can introduce the proposed measures.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House was shocked by the revelations in the Daily Mirror about the abuse of expenses at Essex county council under its Tory leader Lord Hanningfield. It will clearly be of concern to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who regularly lectures local government about the importance of the prudent use of public money. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on that issue and ensure that it is led by the plain-speaking Secretary of State who, as an Essex MP since 1992, could explain what he has done to stop the abuse by his party colleagues in his own county?

[Mr Lansley]

My noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords made a statement in the House of Lords the day before yesterday, in which he said that he was “completely dismayed” to read reports in the press about the behaviour of a Member of that House. The Member in question is not a Conservative peer, but he was formerly the Conservative leader of Essex county council. I share that dismay, but those matters are for the House of Lords, rather than for this House.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

May we have a statement on what the UK response has been to the situation in South Sudan?

[Mr Lansley]

We are following developments in South Sudan with great concern. The British ambassador has spoken to the President of South Sudan. The Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), is speaking with regional Foreign Ministers. We have called for restraint and for differences to be resolved through dialogue, and we have underlined the importance of protecting civilians.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has advised against all travel to Juba and has been helping British nationals to leave. A UK military aircraft is en route to Juba to evacuate British nationals today. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been contacting British nationals in the country and offering consular assistance.

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

When the Leader of the House went home last night, did he not feel a certain amount of shame at being part of a Government who have presided over 500,000 people presenting to food banks? If so, can we have another debate on food banks so that he can express that shame?

[Mr Lansley]

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have seen the number of workless households in this country fall to its lowest ever level. Work is the best route out of poverty.

[Andrew Miller]

Answer the question.

[Mr Lansley]

It is undeniably the case that in the tough times that we faced and with the largest deficit in the OECD, it was necessary to reduce debt in this country. It is impossible simply to ignore the fact that living standards in this country have taken a hit as a consequence of what happened under the last Government. I am proud that this Government are leading the kind of economic recovery that holds the greatest prospect of giving the greatest number of people access to rising living standards in the future.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the future provision of paediatric services nationally? Yesterday, the trust special administrator for the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust recommended the removal of many paediatric services, including in-patient and overnight paediatrics, from Stafford hospital. The main basis for that recommendation is that there are too few consultants to maintain a full rota of eight to 10 consultants. However, there are five or six consultants at the hospital and many services across the country run with far fewer than that. If that logic is pursued, there is a great threat that dozens of paediatric services across the country will face closure.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who continues to be a tireless advocate, on behalf of his constituents, for the services that are being provided at Stafford hospital in very difficult circumstances. I appreciate that. The points that he raises can be made to Monitor, which will consider the report of the trust special administrator. After Monitor has done that, a report will go to the Secretary of State for Health for a final decision in the new year. None the less, I think that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be comforted to know that the paediatric assessment unit, which has paediatric doctors, will continue to be available at Stafford hospital under the proposals.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In the spirit of the festive season, may we have a debate on whether Ministers should be obliged to make new year’s resolutions? I encourage Ministers to resolve always to make statements to the House before doing so to the press, to introduce well-thought-out and coherent legislation, and to smile a little more often than the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

That was a bit of a “Bah, humbug!” moment at the end, unfortunately. In all those respects we do not need to make new year’s resolutions, since they are part of our common practice and custom.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I have been calling for several weeks for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment on the planning regulations for solar PV panels in rural locations. As the Leader of the House will know, in rural north Essex—the northern part of my constituency—more than 300 acres of solar PV panels are being planned, which will affect the villages of Liston, Belchamps, Foxearth and Twinstead. The matter is a continued aggravation to my constituents and they would very much appreciate a debate on this important issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Frankly, I cannot say that I was much aware of the hon. Gentleman’s current preoccupation, but I assure him that I am now.

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, Mr Speaker, so am I. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the issue with Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government when they answer questions early in the new year. In addition, since there will no doubt be Members elsewhere in the House who have similar concerns, my hon. Friend might try to use the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for a debate on the issue.

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

I am sure that during his earlier exchange with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about the merits of Nigel Farage, the Leader of the House simply forgot to say how delighted we all were that Mr Farage failed to get elected to the seat of Buckingham at the last general election. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the amendment that stands in the name of the whole Procedure Committee, the chair of the 1922 committee, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, and other hon. Members, to order No. 9 about the calling of amendments at the end of the Gracious Speech? Can the Procedure Committee therefore invite the Leader of the House to bring it on early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am, of course, familiar with the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it has been on the remaining orders for some time. I confess that time is pressing but the issue is not pressing in that sense. If I may, I will advise the House in due course about when it would be suitable to debate that matter.

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

Further to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), will the Leader of the House offer the prospect of a full statement, before the House rises, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about what the UN Secretary-General has described as a deeply concerning situation in South Sudan, with more than 500 people dead since the weekend, 20,000 people seeking refuge with the United Nations, and violence spreading out from the capital, Juba? Will the Leader of the House give a full guarantee to concerned families about the safety of UK nationals who are still in that country?

[Mr Lansley]

I deliberately gave a fuller answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) than I might otherwise have done, because I am aware it is the final day before the House rises and there might not be another opportunity for Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to update it. If the hon. Gentleman is in his place, and were he to catch the eye of the Speaker, it is open to him to raise the issue again during the pre-recess Adjournment debate that follows statements to the House. I took care this morning to ensure that what I said was up to date and full regarding the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s response to the situation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Ministers have now admitted that there are delays in processing personal independence payments, which are impacting on people with long-term debilitating illnesses such as cancer. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate in Government time so that we can examine why those delays are occurring and what the Government are doing to remedy them?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has previously raised this issue with Ministers. To be practical, during the recess I will ask Ministers to respond to him directly so that we can see the position early in the new year.

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

The behaviour on the Government Benches yesterday during the food bank debate, with Members laughing at the plight of individuals having to go to food banks, was truly shocking to my constituents and many other people up and down this land. May we have a debate about the huge increase in the numbers of homeless people and people sleeping rough, and see whether that also causes amusement on the Government Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry but I do not accept at all the hon. Lady’s premise about the debate yesterday. I think it best for Members not to assume that because they can see what is happening on the other side of the House, they can also hear what is happening. Frankly, that brings the House into disrepute unnecessarily, which is not something I would encourage. On rough sleeping and homeless people, the Government continuously try to ensure that as few people as possible are sleeping rough, and that support, including hostel places, is available for all those who are sleeping rough.

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

The Leader of the House will know that the Department for Transport has been promising all year to publish a Green Paper on graduated licensing for newly qualified drivers, to try to reduce the number of young people killed on our roads. This morning, in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), essentially said that the matter is being postponed indefinitely. May we have a debate on that or a statement from the Department for Transport, so that the House can be informed about what is going on?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have discussed this matter before in business questions, so I am interested in the point he makes. I confess that I have not seen that answer to that question. I will look at it and talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to see whether we can advise him further on their plans.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On Monday of this week, 615 of my constituents lost their jobs at Sharp’s solar plant in Wrexham when investment, which was hard won in 2004 under the previous Government, ended. May we have a debate on this Government’s chaotic investment policy on renewables, which is deterring international investors from bringing jobs to the UK for constituents such as mine, who will have no jobs this Christmas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, set out plans that are giving people increasing confidence in the prospects for renewables investment in this country. I will of course look at the situation the hon. Gentleman raises, which must be of concern to his constituents in Wrexham in particular, and ask my hon. Friends at the Department for their response. The general context, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, is that we are making tremendous progress on private sector jobs, with more than 1.6 million more private sector jobs since the election.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker.

May we have a debate on the proliferation of low-paid bogus self-employment arrangements, especially in the hospitality industry, which are responsible for so many personal cost of living crises?

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, the hon. Gentleman may recall that during the autumn statement the Chancellor set out some of the ways Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is continuing to bear down on schemes that are clearly designed to avoid tax. If I recall correctly, they included issues relating to the question of employment and self-employment, and they will be pursued in that context.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in the House.

May we have a statement, as early as possible next year, from a Treasury Minister to tell us why millionaires are paying less tax this Christmas than they were last, before the Chancellor makes a decision in the Budget to ensure that millionaires pay less tax next Christmas than they are this?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not think we need a statement. First, as I said earlier, the 1% with the highest incomes are paying 30% of tax. Secondly, the highest rate of income tax is now higher than it was in every month of the previous Labour Government, except for the last month. Thirdly, 2.7 million of the lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Parliamentary Privilege

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government made a commitment in the programme for government to

“prevent the possible misuse of Parliamentary privilege by MPs accused of serious wrongdoing.”

In April 2012 the Government published a Green Paper that gave detailed consideration as to whether a change in the law is needed with regard to parliamentary privilege. The Green Paper focused on the following main areas:

freedom of speech and whether the protection of privilege should be disapplied in cases of alleged criminality;

exclusive cognisance and the desirability of a number of possible reforms in this area, for example codifying the two Houses’ enforceable powers; and

other privileges that do not fall under the two main headings of freedom of speech and exclusive cognisance such as the desirability of changes to the law on reporting of parliamentary proceedings.

These issues were scrutinised by a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, whose subsequent report made a number of recommendations. The Government’s responses form part of the Command Paper on parliamentary privilege, which has been published today.

The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege for its detailed consideration of this issue; these are Parliament’s privileges and it is therefore right for Parliament to have a proper opportunity to reflect on their continuing purpose.

The Government continue to believe, and share the opinion of the Joint Committee, that there is no strong case for a comprehensive codification of privilege. However, as rightly recognised in the Joint Committee’s report, this does not mean that steps cannot be taken both by Parliament and by Government to clarify and improve the application of privilege where appropriate.

Further details of the Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee are in the “Government’s Response to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege” Command Paper (ref Cm 8771), laid before Parliament today.