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.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Care Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords] followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments.

Wednesday 18 December—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on accident and emergency services, followed by a debate on food banks.

Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion.

Thursday 19 December—Select Committee statement on the publication of the Ninth Report from the Transport Committee entitled “High Speed Rail: On Track?” followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 January 2014 will include:

Monday 6 January—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 19 December and 9 January 2014 will be:

Thursday 19 December—A debate on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

Thursday 9 January—A debate on the Fifth Report of the Transport Select Committee on access to transport for disabled people, followed by a debate on the First Report of the International Development Select Committee on global food security.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I take this opportunity to wish him a happy birthday for yesterday?

I also thank the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for the chance the House had on Monday to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela. Will the Leader of the House confirm when he plans to reschedule the business that we had to move to accommodate what was an entirely appropriate and solemn occasion?

Today the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority released its recommendations on MPs’ pay and pensions. Does the Leader of the House agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that those suffering a cost of living crisis will not understand a pay rise many times the rate of inflation? Does he agree that, notwithstanding IPSA’s independence, a joint meeting should take place today to ask it to reconsider the package?

Given that the autumn statement has, in effect, turned into the winter statement, does the Leader of the House agree that it is crucial for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement on the provisional local government finance settlement for England before the House rises next week? Local authorities are already struggling with huge cuts and they need as much time as possible to deal with the unpalatable decisions this Government have left them with.

More than 50 hon. and right hon. Members attended yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), on the future of the badger cull. It is becoming increasingly clear that the cull is an expensive disaster for farmers, wildlife and all taxpayers. Since the extensions to the cull were announced, hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions and many experts have demanded that the Government rethink their approach. Some hon. Members who were in favour of the cull are changing their minds, but all the Environment Secretary does is ignore the facts, hide behind written ministerial statements and assert his personal belief that it is working. Does the Leader of the House agree with the swelling numbers on his own Back Benches who recognise that this cull is a travesty? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to emerge from his sett and come to the House for an urgent debate in Government time on the future of the 40 further culls that are currently scheduled to take place?

Last week’s autumn statement confirmed one central fact: working people are worse off under this Government. The Chancellor made the desperate claim that

“real household disposable income is rising”.—[Official Report, 5 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 1101.]

We know, however, that the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies was right when he said that household income is

“almost certainly significantly lower now than it was in 2010.”

Does the Leader of the House think that the Chancellor was right to include the incomes of charities, universities and pension contributions in his calculations as if they were household income? Does he agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that it is “inconceivable” that household incomes are rising?

The Government began by insisting that they did not enjoy making spending cuts, but the mask slipped a few weeks ago when the Prime Minister donned his white tie and tails and told an audience in the City that public spending cuts are not just for now but for ever. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, by 2017-18 Government spending on public services and administration

“will shrink to its smallest share of national income at least since 1948, when comparable National Accounts data are first available”.

This Government’s stated aim is pre-1948 levels of spending, but with double the number of retired people to care for and far more expensive health needs. Despite the hollow protestations of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today, the fact is that the Liberal Democrats signed up only last week to creating this pre-war vision of an unnaturally shrunken and feeble state.

The Chancellor can throw as much mud as he likes at the previous Labour Government, but the British people will see straight through him to the cold, stark reality of this baleful vision of a country with no social justice and no safety net—a country in which people sink or swim. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on this Government’s Hobbesian vision of the future?

The fiasco at the Department for Work and Pensions continued this week, with the Secretary of State being dragged kicking and screaming to the House after trying to sneak out a major delay to his flagship universal credit programme two hours before the autumn statement. Despite wasting many millions of pounds on useless IT and admitting that he will fail to meet his already extended deadline, he farcically claimed in the House that the entire programme was “essentially…on time”. On that definition, living standards are essentially soaring, the badger cull is essentially a success and England is essentially winning the Ashes.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, especially for her birthday greetings. I heard the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), tell us about her grandmother’s 100th birthday today, and it is great that I have a way to go. I am encouraged by that thought; I am of course now more than halfway there.

The hon. Lady asked about the business that was on Monday’s Order Paper. I am very glad that we could rearrange the business on Monday to have the tribute debate, which was one of those occasions when the House demonstrated its capacity to capture the nation’s mood and speak on its behalf. Of those items of business, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on defence reform on Tuesday that he would have made on Monday, and we dealt with the statutory instrument relating to terrorism on Tuesday that would otherwise have been debated on Monday. I hope to be able to announce a date for the Intellectual Property Bill when I announce future business in the new year.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the IPSA report that has been published this morning. Like other hon. Members, she will have heard what the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, and I hope that IPSA very clearly hears exactly what the party leaders have said. It is incumbent on hon. Members across the House who disagree with its judgment to make that very clear to IPSA. I have done so on behalf of the Government, making it clear that IPSA should take into account the public sector pay environment; our conclusion is that IPSA has not done that and should reconsider. The report is not a final determination, in the sense that IPSA must have a statutory review after the election, and it has made it clear that it will do so. I hope that such points will be made forcefully, so that IPSA arrives at such a reconsideration on that basis.

The hon. Lady asked about the badger cull. There was of course a debate yesterday, and the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), responded to it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues will continue with the pilots—I stress that they are pilots and give us an enormous amount of information about the mechanisms by which a badger cull can be pursued. Colleagues in the House and people outside need to be aware of the enormous cost and the tens of thousands of cattle that have been slaughtered as a consequence of the failure to tackle bovine TB previously. That has to be tackled, and the question is how we can do it most effectively. The pilots will give us the information that we need.

I was pleased that the hon. Lady said that there was a need to follow up on the autumn statement. Although time is tight, any opportunity that we have to follow up on the autumn statement will be welcomed by Government Members. It will give us an opportunity to debate the improvement in the growth forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility; the progress that we are making on cutting the deficit; the freeze on fuel duty all the way through to 2015, which will mean that the price of fuel will be 20p per litre lower by the end of the Parliament than under Labour’s plans; and the reduction in the burden of business rates. Like many colleagues in the House, I spoke to small businesses on Saturday who expressed their support for the reduction in business rates that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement.

Such a debate would also give us the opportunity to talk about how we can raise living standards. That can be achieved only with a stronger economy. It comes ill from any representative of the Labour party who stands at that Dispatch Box to follow the example of the shadow Chancellor and fail to recognise—indeed, to be in complete denial of—the simple fact that the reason why living standards in this country have suffered is that the economy shrank under Labour, in the worst recession for a century, owing to a 7.2% reduction in national output. The only way in which we will be able to raise people’s living standards is by strengthening the economy, which the coalition Government are doing.

Finally, it was a bit rich of the hon. Lady to speak of a “fiasco” at the Department for Work and Pensions on a day when the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions could not decide whether the state pension would be inside or outside the welfare cap. She replied as she did because Labour has it in mind to curb increases in the state pension in order to raise benefits. That is not a judgment that the Government will make.

Finally, I recall that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You’ve said finally already!

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, two finallys for the price of one.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said yesterday that the shadow Secretary of State could not tell the difference between a write-off and a write-down—between a write-off and a depreciation. The Labour party is lecturing us about useless Government IT schemes after what it left! In the Department of Health, I had to take £2 billion out of the contract costs for an NHS IT scheme that was not delivering. Even after I had taken £2 billion out, we were still left with virtually £5 billion of committed contractual costs. The last Government could not run an IT scheme in a brewery!

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that, as usual, the shadow Leader of the House was talking this country down? It was outrageous of her to suggest that we will not win the Ashes.

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the shadow Leader of the House was intending to make a joke, but to make a joke at the expense of our team in the Ashes test series shows very poor judgment.

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

This morning we heard about cuts to the mental health budget. We are supposed to have a national health service that treats mentally ill people, young and old, in a respectful way. That requires resources. What will the Leader of the House do about the Government policy to cut those vital services?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was this Government who in 2012 for the first time introduced a requirement—a duty—in the NHS that mental health issues should have parity with physical health issues, and that must of course be reflected in the way that clinical commissioning groups commission services. There is a structural issue, however, that I experienced when I was Health Secretary and that I fear continues. Many of the services that are commissioned and paid for from NHS providers are paid for under a tariff. Therefore, if somebody requires treatment, the provider gets paid for that, but as a consequence, the clinical commissioning group—mental health services are substantially not on tariff—gets a block grant. After the tariff expenditure has been calculated by the commissioners, the amount available for the block grant is often being squeezed. That is why mental health providers wanted a tariff basis, although they have not yet got it consistently. I hope the commissioners, NHS England and Monitor will continue to make progress on that.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Although there are large companies in my constituency, Mid Derbyshire has a wide range of small and medium-sized businesses. George’s Tradition, a local chain of award-winning fish and chip shops, employs a large number of young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the abolition of national insurance contributions for under-21s?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted that after the autumn statement last Thursday, on Tuesday we were able to table a new clause to the National Insurance Contributions Bill that will bring into law the opportunity to reduce national insurance contributions for those under 21 who earn less than £813 a week. As John Cridland of the CBI said:

“Abolishing a jobs tax on employing young people under 21 will make a real difference and help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.”

That will be the second time in this Parliament that we have been able to abolish a jobs tax.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Last week it was reported that one in five hospital admissions are a result of alcohol abuse, and thousands of babies are still born every year damaged by alcohol consumed during the mother’s pregnancy. May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time on our serious and growing alcohol problems, and what the Government propose to do about them?

[Mr Lansley]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s continuing concern about the abuse of alcohol. The issue is not the overall consumption of alcohol in this country, but the extent to which there is abusive use of alcohol, and to which young people are accessing alcohol, and the consequences that flow from that. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but following the alcohol strategy that the Home Secretary announced last year, I look forward in the new year to further statements in the House on how we take that strategy forward.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Yesterday the UK hosted the G8 dementia summit, which had strong international support for the leadership shown by the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister in putting dementia at the front of the G8, and the international challenge and fight against disease. May we have a statement or debate in the House to allow all parties to discuss how we can do more to change the way we think about dementia, from its being something that every old person gets to becoming a disease, like cancer or AIDS, that with effort, collective funding and new science and technology we will defeat?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I, like Members across the House, was impressed by the support brought together by this country and the Prime Minister in following the issue up at the G8 summit. Colleagues will recall the G8 summit on HIV/AIDS and how that led to a worldwide acknowledgement of the nature of the problem and the removal of stigma in addressing it, as well as investment in research and treatment. We need all of that and more for dementia, because the scale of the task and the challenge is immense and there is no time to lose. The pace at which an ageing population is leading to rising numbers of people with dementia means that immense costs will be associated with care if we do not make great improvements in research and treatment.

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

May we have a debate on the commissioning of the meningitis B vaccine, which is crucial for children? There are several such cases in my constituency and in the rest of Northern Ireland. Can time be made available for a debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I fear I cannot promise time to the hon. Lady immediately, but I recognise the problem. The Government in England and the devolved Administrations work closely together on the development of the vaccination programme. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to correspond with her, sharing that with the Northern Ireland Health Minister.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Among other things, the purpose of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is to make the system open, honest and transparent, reduce the cost of politics and help raise the standing of MPs with the public. In the light of IPSA’s announcement this morning of a 9.2% pay raise for MPs, along with a cost-neutral package of reforms, may we have a debate on whether IPSA is fit for purpose? It is totally out of touch with what is going on in the country, has not reduced the cost of politics and does nothing to contribute to raising the standing of MPs with such packages.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that IPSA’s proposal is not a final determination, as the pay element is subject to a statutory review. We have made progress: in July, there was a package that would have cost more. IPSA has tried, as he will see in today’s publication, not to increase the cost of politics. Since it put the new scheme of costs and expenses in place, the cumulative reduction in total cost in the past three years is £35.8 million, so the cost of politics is being reduced. The Government are doing their bit. The Prime Minister and his colleagues reduced Ministers’ pay by 5%, compared with our predecessors, at the start of this Government, and that has been frozen for the life of this Parliament. There is a particular point relating to IPSA’s judgment on MPs’ pay at a time of continuing pay restraint in the public sector, on which it has to listen to party leaders.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Exactly a week ago, suspected al-Qaeda militants burst into a hospital in Sana’a killing 52 people, including all the doctors, nurses and patients. May we please have a debate next week on the situation in Yemen, and may I ask the Leader of the House not to ask me to raise this issue at Foreign Office questions? That would not help us. We need a debate next week.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure Members understand fully the seriousness of the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers. I cannot promise time for a debate next week, but I am sure he is aware that there is scope for such matters to be raised before the Adjournment next Thursday under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee.

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

Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the conduct of the Iraq war started in 2009 and has cost more than £8 million. The report was due to be published in 2012; a year later, there is still no sign of it. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), to come to the House to make a statement on when the report will be published, or on who or what is delaying publication?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Sir John Chilcot wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 November to update him on the inquiry. He reported that continuing discussions on certain classified documents had delayed what is known as the Maxwellisation process, and hence publication of the report. Members and the public can see that correspondence, which is published on the Iraq inquiry website. The Government are committed to giving Sir John as much time as he needs to finish his report. Readers of that correspondence will be aware that the Government continue to act in good faith to enable Sir John Chilcot to complete his inquiry as soon as he may.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Government on announcing that the first same-sex marriages will take place on 29 March, not least because this is Norman Tebbit’s birthday—so that’s one in the eye for the bigots, isn’t it? Will the Government explain next week, however, why they are delaying for so long the introduction of the upgrades to same-sex marriages for those currently in civil partnerships? France managed to do it a week after legislating, so why are we taking 18 months?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the announcement made by the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), about the opportunity on 29 March. My recollection is that the legislation includes a requirement for a review of the situation relating to civil partnerships, so I suspect that is one thing that needs to be proceeded with in the first instance.

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

May we have an early debate on school transport? If a youngster passes an entrance exam to Clitheroe Royal grammar school, but lives more than three miles from it and has to go past another school on the way, they get no assistance with school transport costs, which is hugely discriminatory. We should be encouraging youngsters to attend the school of their choice.

[Mr Lansley]

Like other Members, I am aware of the issue my hon. Friend raises. It is often quite complex: there is not necessarily no help at all, but that help may be limited to those in low-income households. I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to reply to him about those issues and how they see us being able to help promote parental choice in relation to schools.

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

In the light of a constituency case, may I ask the Leader of the House to persuade the Secretary of State for Health to come to this House to make a statement on the lack of places available to sectioned juveniles? There appears to be a dearth of units around the country appropriate for that type of care, and commissioners have told me that they find it difficult, in the current health structure, to work out how best to place these young people.

[Mr Lansley]

I will raise that issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If, as the hon. Lady says, it relates to a constituency case, I am sure she will write to him—if she has not done so already—and I shall encourage him to respond on the particular case and the general point.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The autumn statement included commitments to investment in several much-needed improvements to roads in England, and the Welsh Government will take similar decisions in Wales. May we have a debate or written statement on the establishment of a process to deal with improvements across the border between England and Wales, which have collapsed as a consequence of devolution?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about. I know he will share his interest in the issue. Devolution has many merits, but all of us in the devolved Administrations and the UK Government want to work together to deliver the infrastructure improvements we all want.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House indicate when we can have a debate on housing? I have raised this issue before. There are many people in this country who have no prospect of ever being able to afford a property, who have great difficulty accessing council or housing association properties and who therefore have no choice but to enter the unregulated and—in London—incredibly expensive private rented sector. May we have a debate on Government proposals, if there are any, to regulate the private rented sector, including through a cap on rents or at least some kind of fair rents formula?

[Mr Lansley]

I think I heard the makings of a contribution to the pre-recess Adjournment debate being formulated by the hon. Gentleman even as he asked his question.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Just answer the question.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I cannot at the moment promise the hon. Gentleman a statement, given the considerable pressure of legislative business, but when we can have one, I personally would welcome a debate on housing. One of the Government’s priorities is to turn around the 400,000-plus reduction in social housing under the last Government. We are setting out to ensure that more social and affordable housing is available, and we are seeing an increase of approximately one third in the number of planning approvals, which will sustain what I hope is now a rising trend from the position we inherited from the last Government on overall house building numbers.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on nuisance calls? Time and again, my constituents are being plagued by automated and unwarranted nuisance sales calls. These are often via unidentified numbers and can be particularly worrying for isolated people, especially the elderly who live on their own.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know that tackling unsolicited marketing nuisance calls is being addressed through measures in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport strategy paper published in July, to which I referred in previous business questions, and through an action plan to be published shortly. I know that Members have gone to the Backbench Business Committee to seek a debate in order to influence the content of that action plan. My hon. Friend and others may well have a sympathetic hearing from the Backbench Business Committee.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that, after two disastrous franchise agreements, rail services on the east coast main line have been publicly and successfully run since November 2009, achieving record levels of passenger satisfaction and returning hundreds of millions of pounds to the Treasury. May we have an early debate on the Government’s imminent plans to re-privatise the east coast main line service—against the best interests of the taxpayer and the passenger, and without full public consultation?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, a week today, on 19 December, my colleagues from the Department for Transport will be here, and I am sure they will be happy to answer that question if he is here to ask it.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Given the launch of Formula E—an electric car racing championship, much like Formula 1—does the Lord Privy Seal agree that we should have an opportunity to promote a similar contest for aeroplanes made of composite materials and powered by electric batteries, because that is one way of pushing forward innovation in an exciting way, matching up our ambitions in the autumn statement?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will know that the Government share his aspiration that by 2050, almost every car and van in the UK fleet will be an ultra-low emission vehicle. The huge UK automotive industry is at the forefront of the design, development and manufacture of such vehicles. The Government published in September their ultra-low emission strategy, “Driving the Future Today”. I have to say, however, that due to the limited capability of battery technology to store sufficient energy even for short flights, there is currently no prospect of which we are aware for commercial electric aircraft. However, I will encourage my colleagues at the Department for Transport to discuss his ambition further with him.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House obviously heard the shadow Leader of the House talking about yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on the badger cull. Even the Chief Whip took the time to attend it. There is a demand and a real expectation on both sides of the House for this Chamber to have a lengthy debate on the issue. We all know about the plight of farmers, but we also realise that money is being wasted on this cull.

[Mr Lansley]

I have taken note of that, and the hon. Gentleman is right that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary listened carefully to yesterday’s debate. I will not add to what I said earlier, but I am listening.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that annuities are coming under increasing scrutiny. At a recent meeting of the all-party group on pensions, which I chair, it was made clear that millions of current and future pensioners would benefit considerably from improvements to annuities and from greater transparency, competition and flexibility. Will a Treasury Minister attend next week’s pre-recess debate, so that I can encourage the Treasury to focus on this area?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a point of real importance. Many Members are, like me, aware of the pressure on annuitants buying annuities at times when yields can be relatively low, highlighting the importance of their getting the best possible deal, the best possible information and, frankly, the lowest possible charges. If my hon. Friend raised this issue in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I cannot promise that a Treasury Minister would be there because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is going to respond to it. My hon. Friend could, however, be confident that if he raised the matter, Ministers would be made aware of it and would listen to what he had to say.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The education of 16 to 18-year-olds already receives 22% less funding than the education of those aged between five and 16. May we have an urgent debate on the impact of the 17% cut in funds for the education of 18-year-olds that was announced this week?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I will ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman’s question that was relevant to further education colleges, and that the Department for Education deals with his point about the overall distribution of education funding.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

A business in my constituency has sadly fallen victim to a scam involving a bogus website, and I fear that such illegal activities are more widespread. Given the impact that cybercrime can have on small businesses, and given the work that the Cabinet Office is undertaking on cybercrime—it is set out in a written ministerial statement today—may we have a debate about this important issue on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, cybercrime is often under-reported. Action Fraud is a national reporting service run by the National Fraud Authority, a Home Office agency, to which members of the public and businesses can report fraud and financially motivated cybercrime either online or by telephone. The Government have announced a £4 million campaign to raise awareness of cybercrime among businesses and individuals, including young people, so that they can protect themselves better. It will be launched in January, supported by the private and voluntary sectors. I cannot promise a debate at this stage, but my hon. Friend will have noted that in January, members of the public and businesses will have an opportunity to be better informed.

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

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy, perhaps next week? Although the Energy Bill finally received Royal Assent this week, it has become apparent in the last couple of days that the future of Eggborough power station, which accounts for up to 4% of UK capacity, has been placed in jeopardy because of a unilateral, last-minute and unexplained change to the early contract for difference allocation process undertaken by officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a statement but, as the hon. Gentleman has raised an important and specific point, I will ask the Secretary of State for Energy to reply to him directly.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Small business Saturday was a big success in the borough of Kettering last week, when local people came out to support their local traders. Given that the beneficial effects of every £1 spent in the local economy are worth £1.76, I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, is supporting the campaign by the Federation of Small Businesses to keep trade local. The aim is to encourage people to buy locally from now until Christmas. Will he ensure that, throughout 2014, we have regular opportunities to highlight the good work and endeavour of local small businesses and traders?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I believe that we in South Cambridgeshire shared my hon. Friend’s experience, and I am sure that was the case throughout the country. Of course we want to support local businesses, but so do many consumers who require locally produced, well-differentiated goods. Small businesses are the economic powerhouse of the future. We have 400,000 more of them now, and small business formation is at a record level. That presents a tremendous prospect, as long as we continue to give those businesses the support they require.

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

The Leader of the House said earlier that he would like the House to have more debates on the economic situation following the autumn statement, and he has just been talking about small businesses. I, too, participated in Small business Saturday, in Blackpool. However, it is a long time since we had a proper debate on the Floor of the House about how the economic climate is affecting seaside and coastal towns such as Blackpool, which have been hit particularly badly by a range of funding cuts—and that includes small businesses. Will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues and arrange for a debate about seaside and coastal towns to take place on the Floor of the House in the near future?

[Mr Lansley]

I should love to arrange a debate about seaside and coastal towns, which would be very useful. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the differences between this and previous Parliaments is that a significant part of the time that used to be available to Ministers and the Leader of the House for debates that do not relate specifically to the passage of legislation has been transferred to the Backbench Business Committee. In my experience, the Committee has been extremely receptive, on a cross-party basis, to Members who approach it seeking debates.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I was pleased to visit Barnfield primary school in Burnt Oak last week, where I was told in terms how pleased both parents and staff are that the Government have announced free school meals for children from reception to year 2. Therefore, may we have a debate on the nutritional values of free school meals and their effects on early-years learning?

[Mr Lansley]

We know from the pilots held between 2009 and 2011 that where free school meals are provided to primary pupils, educational attainment has improved, particularly among children from less affluent families. Studies also show that where universal free school meals have been provided, there are social and behavioural benefits to the children and they are more likely to eat healthily during the school day. We also know, of course, the risks associated with poor diet and childhood obesity, so in addition to the measures the Deputy Prime Minister has announced and that the Government will bring in from next September, I was pleased to see the latest figures on the national child measurement programme showing the overall obesity level of children coming into reception classes is down on what it was in the previous year, and lower than in 2006.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When we discuss the Care Bill on Monday, we will be debating amendment 118, which gives the Secretary of State for Health a kind of Henry VIII power to direct mergers and changes in hospital provision. However, in cases where hospitals actually want to merge, the situation is overcomplicated by the role of the Competition Commission. Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Health the tabling of an urgent amendment to that Bill to ensure that instead of our money being spent on expensive competition lawyers, it is spent on health provision?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady seeks a statement, too, or a debate in the House next week. [Interruption.] Indeed.

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Lady was referring to clause 118 of the Care Bill, which will be the subject of debate on Second Reading as announced, and I am sure she will be able to make those points then. For my part, I will simply say that it is a matter of necessity in any sector of activity for there to be proper competition rules. Monitor is responsible for those competition rules in relation to the health sector, except in relation to mergers, where the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, or the new Competition and Markets Authority, have wide-ranging expertise across all sectors.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

One of the items that did not make the oral statement on the autumn statement was the welcome news that the pre-1992 trapped annuitants—the most vulnerable victims of the Equitable Life scandal—will receive their compensation before Christmas, so may we have an urgent statement next week from the Minister responsible laying out exactly what the Government have done to compensate the victims of the Equitable Life scandal compared with the Labour party, which did nothing for 13 years?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recall the past occasions when he has rightly raised this matter both with Treasury Ministers and with me at business questions. I am very pleased that his efforts on behalf of those pre-1992 Equitable Life annuitants have borne such fruit—and early fruit, before Christmas. We will, I hope, next week take the opportunities to make sure the people affected and the wider public are aware of this.

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

Five weeks ago, on 6 November, I asked wither the Prime Minister thought that Tory councillor Abdul Aziz, whom the Prime Minister invited to a party in October, should return to face justice in Pakistan where there is an outstanding arrest warrant for him in connection with a brutal murder. The Prime Minister promised he would write to me. That was five weeks ago and I have had no response from the Prime Minister. May we urgently have a statement from the Prime Minister on this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall the Prime Minister saying he would inquire into this matter. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I do not know the outcome of that, but I will inquire into it myself.

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

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone who worked so hard towards agreeing the city deal for Coventry and Warwickshire, including my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who took part in my Adjournment debate earlier this year? May we have a debate on how we can deliver the most for our region through the city deal, which is expected to create over 15,000 new jobs by 2025?

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has been able to announce the agreement on the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, along with city deals for the black country and other areas. I cannot promise an immediate debate on the subject, but it will be an encouraging occasion when the city deals collectively can be debated in the House. My hon. Friend’s example is a good one; focusing as it does on advanced manufacturing and engineering, it holds out the prospect of £66 million of investment and 8,000 new jobs in the advanced manufacturing and engineering sector, which will be important for our economic progress.

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

May we please have an urgent statement from the Government on segregation in our universities, in order to restate clearly our cross-party commitment to equality, especially in those institutions that are receiving public money?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I confess that it was news to me when I heard a discussion about it on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. If I may, I will talk to the Minister for Universities and Science about the matter, to see whether it might be appropriate for him to report to the House.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May we have a debate to review the pupil premium? I was delighted to learn this week that Avon Valley school in my constituency has had a “good” Ofsted report and that the inspectors found that the head teacher, Don O’Neill, and his staff were using the premium effectively to provide a welcome narrowing of the attainment gap between the students who benefit from the premium and their classmates.

[Mr Lansley]

We as a coalition Government can take great pride in the way in which the pupil premium is impacting on the most disadvantaged pupils who need additional support, and in the ability of schools to offer that support in a way that allows the leadership of the school to make their own judgment on how the resources should be used. I am pleased to note that Avon Valley school is providing a good education. The chief inspector of Ofsted pointed out only yesterday that good schools require good leaders, and I understand that Avon Valley school’s Ofsted report highlights the strengths in the leadership and the teaching at that school.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disgraceful, disreputable and frankly immoral conduct of Rothschild’s for its role in giving advice and support on providing mortgage equity release schemes to hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country who are now facing extreme poverty in their later years instead of compensation from that big finance house? That is a disgrace. Will he help us to find time to debate the matter in the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry; I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise that issue, and I have not had an opportunity to talk to my hon. Friends at the Treasury about that case. However, he clearly feels strongly about the issue and if he is in his place next Thursday for the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, would be more than happy to respond on behalf of the Government if he raises it at that time.

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

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) in asking for a debate, or at least a statement, on funding for students aged 18 in further education? My local college received a letter from the Education Funding Agency this week telling it that it will be £800 per student worse off compared with sixth-form colleges, which will be no worse off at all. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an Education Minister to come to the Chamber to address this issue, by means of either a statement or, preferably, a full debate?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have heard the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I will of course discuss this with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to see how they might wish to update the House and perhaps Members individually.

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

Yesterday, the UK and the US stopped all non-lethal aid going into northern Syria. This is yet another development that has not been debated in the House. We last had a debate on the matter in August, and the last statement was on 8 October. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to provide a statement on the matter before we break for the recess?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

In the light of these developments, I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Time for an oral statement is very limited and that could therefore be difficult to arrange, but I will see whether it is possible for a statement to be given to the House before we rise for Christmas.

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

In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about mental health funding, the Leader of the House implied that he was against NHS resourcing based on activity. So may we have a statement on why previous Health Secretaries and the current one have pushed for NHS resourcing based on activity? Will the right hon. Gentleman not then be supporting proposals that NHS England is considering next week, which emphasise health care resourcing based on activity and not on health care need or health inequalities?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Lady reads what I said, I think she will find that I was supporting the principle of tariff-based funding, which is an activity-based funding scheme. In that sense, NHS England, independently, is responsible for allocating resources to clinical commissioning groups and the mandate to it is clear: it should do that according to the principle of equal access for equal need.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

City analysts from Liberum Capital have described the Hinkley Point nuclear power station deal as “economically insane” for offering a price for electricity at double the going rate, index linked and guaranteed for 35 years, at the cost of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Next week, there will be a decision on whether an investigation takes place in Europe—that would delay the power station for at least 18 months. So is it not crucial that next week Parliament decides its view on this astonishing rip-off for taxpayers?

[Mr Lansley]

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change came to this Dispatch Box and made a statement announcing the Hinkley Point deal. The hon. Gentleman should not construe the fact that the European Commission looks at it as anything to be remarked upon; it was inevitable and a matter of necessity that it would do so. It was always anticipated that that would happen.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

This week, we heard some marvellous tributes paid to Nelson Mandela. Next week, will the Leader of the House, together with the relevant House authorities, look into the possibility of dedicating a room in this place to the memory of the great man?

[Mr Lansley]

We have not had occasion to remark upon it, but the House will of course be further commemorating and celebrating the life of Nelson Mandela this afternoon in the Great Hall at Westminster, and people will be coming from right across the country to do exactly that. Beyond that, it is probably a matter more for the House of Commons Commission or its Committees to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he wishes to put a proposal forward, I am sure it will be considered.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

rose—

Business of the House (Today)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That, at today’s sitting, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.

On Thursday 5 December, I confirmed that business for today, 10 December, would be the remaining stages of the National Insurance (Contributions) Bill, followed by opposed private business. The motion on the Order Paper seeks to protect the time available to debate the proposed private business. The programme motion previously agreed by the House on 4 November for the National Insurance (Contributions) Bill provides a full day for consideration of Report and Third Reading. The House also needs to debate and approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

The motion I have tabled—with the agreement of the Chairman of Ways and Means—would therefore allow the private business to run for up to three hours following the conclusion of the National Insurance (Contributions) Bill and the statutory instrument on the prevention and suppression of terrorism. A motion is needed because consideration of Government business will probably take us beyond 4 pm, the normal time for commencing opposed private business on a Tuesday. It would also allow the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption, if necessary. I hope that Members will not want to obstruct the business that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down for today. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I shall respond to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, the House could have considered this matter on earlier occasions, but the motion was objected to on those occasions. If the House had approved it at an earlier stage, it would have been clear to Members who are interested in the opposed private business that it would be dealt with later in the day.

We are not seeking to amend Standing Order No. 20. We are asking the House, “notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20”, to fix the time of the business today, our purpose being to ensure that time is available for both the public business and the opposed private business. I make no apology to the House, or beyond, for the fact that we give priority to public business in this place. As it happens, however, there is more pressure on public business than usual today as a consequence of yesterday’s tributes to Nelson Mandela. Today’s urgent question and statement, and, indeed, the motion relating to terrorism, might otherwise have been taken yesterday.

This is a decision for the House, and the House is being invited, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20, to ensure that there is sufficient time for the public business today, followed by the protected three hours for the private business.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No.

Question put.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for the next week is as follows:

Monday 9 December—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on rural communities. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 December—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by: the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Wednesday 11 December—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.

Thursday 12 December—Select Committee statement on the publication of the first report from the Liaison Committee entitled “Civil Service: Lacking Capacity”, followed by a general debate on the fishing industry, followed by a debate on a motion relating to Ford and Visteon UK Ltd pensioners. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.

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

Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Care Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 18 December—Opposition day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on accident and emergency services, followed by a debate on food banks. Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion.

Thursday 19 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 December—The House will not be sitting.

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

Thursday 16 January—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.

[Ms Eagle]

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

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) announced this week that after a good innings in Parliament he will declare on 41 not out. I am sure that everyone will join me in paying tribute to one of the longest serving Members of the House, and I wish him all the best in his next choice of career. I will not predict a swift return this time, but may I suggest that his local party needs to incorporate an IQ test as part of the selection process for his successor to stop the Mayor of London sniffing around?

I note that on the Order Paper today there is a written ministerial statement on the progress of universal credit—a major announcement about a flagship Government policy that as recently as last month the Work and Pensions Secretary guaranteed would be delivered on time. The statement was slipped out just two hours before the autumn statement, and made available to the media before it was made available to the House. It announces major delays and the complete upheaval of the universal credit scheme, which affects millions of people. Despite the importance of the announcement, there is very little detail about what is actually going on. This is a contemptible way to treat Parliament.

When the Work and Pensions Secretary’s delusions about the practicality of his grand reforms collide with reality, he should be forced to come to this House in person to account for himself. Will the Leader of the House now guarantee that the Secretary of State will explain himself to the House at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister’s unlikely infatuation with the Chinese Communist party continued apace this week, as he skipped Prime Minister’s questions again, postponed the autumn statement until today and flew to Beijing to deliver a framed photograph of himself and a biography of Margaret Thatcher. After being in the diplomatic deep freeze for three years, the Prime Minister took his re-initiation like a man and ended up feasting on bamboo fungus in the spectacular surroundings of the great hall of the people—and to think he was the one who accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) of taking mind-altering substances. It is clear that the Prime Minister has been getting into bad habits, too; his press conference with the Chinese Premier consisted of two long statements, no questions, and concluded to rapturous applause from the journalists who had the honour to be present. I think the Lobby had better watch out.

The Prime Minister has been on more foreign junkets in three short years than there are Lib Dem betrayals, but the trade deficit has got worse this year, so may we have a statement on the value for money that these spectacularly expensive, taxpayer-funded PR opportunities represent?

There is less than an hour to go before the Chancellor gets to his feet to deliver the delayed autumn statement. We have had the usual raft of selected leaks to the press and Government pre-statement announcements. The Chancellor was even tweeting bits of it last night. He’s got form. In the 2012 Budget, we had tax U-turns on pasties, charities and caravans, and the word “omnishambles” entered the Oxford English Dictionary. In last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor’s flagship Swiss tax deal and the 4G auction both raised less than a third of what he had scored in the Red Book, and large chunks of the last Budget were published before he even got to the House.

This year, the Chancellor has been busy getting his U-turns in first. He has been getting more incoherent by the day. He thinks it is Marxist to cap energy prices but positively Thatcherite to cap payday loans. He has been so panicked by the popularity of our energy price freeze that he has persuaded the Energy Secretary to claim that a £70 increase in bills is actually a cut. When will he realise that, on energy, only a price freeze will do? And while he is at it, will he realise that after the record £1.4 billion Euro-fine of banks involved in the Euribor and LIBOR fixing yesterday, he should accept the Lords amendments to the banking reform Bill that create a licensing regime for senior bankers? Will the Leader of the House confirm that he is planning to do that?

Despite the welcome news that our economy is growing again, growth is only a third of what the Chancellor predicted it would be in 2010 and we have the slowest recovery for 100 years. All the Chancellor has delivered is a recovery that helps a few at the top and leaves ordinary people hurting. That is this Chancellor all over—tax cuts for millionaires and a living standards crisis for everybody else.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the future business and especially for her very kind words about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The House will have an opportunity, which I look forward to, to express its full appreciation of my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] There is plenty of time yet. You never know with my right hon. Friend quite what is going to happen, because he has a habit of re-emerging in different guises. He has had more regenerations than Dr Who.

The hon. Lady asked about the written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in which he set out the further steps we have been taking to trial, learn, implement and put in place an effective online digital system. [Interruption.] It is perfectly reasonable to tell the House about steps that are being taken in line with the policy to deliver universal credit on time and on budget, and my right hon. Friend has done it by way of a written statement to the House.

The hon. Lady asked about the Prime Minister not being here for Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. As it happens, and as she knows, the Prime Minister has been here to answer questions at least as often as his predecessors. In particular, he has made more statements to the House than any of his predecessors. What the hon. Lady said was wrong in relation to where the Prime Minister’s priorities should lie. He has, among many other things, been a leader in going around the world winning business for this country, and for him to be in China winning £1 billion of business will enable us, having almost doubled exports to China under this Government, to do more in the future. It is extremely important that we do so.

The hon. Lady asked the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. I announced that the House would consider amendments from the Lords during our debates next Wednesday. If I may, I will leave that debate until next Wednesday, rather than pre-empt it now. The Bill will enable us to put in place effective banking regulation for the future, after the failure of the tripartite system that was put in place by the shadow Chancellor when he was the financial services Minister.

Speaking of the shadow Chancellor, we are all looking for him. We could not find him when the national infrastructure plan was being reported to the House yesterday, so we look forward to having him here today. I am sort of sorry that, in the business announced, the Opposition did not use their opportunity of an Opposition day before Christmas to debate the economy, as we could have discussed the long-term plan of this Government, which is clearly demonstrating that we are turning the corner and building a strong and sustainable recovery. After the small hors d’oeuvre of business questions, I look forward to a satisfying main course when the Chancellor makes his statement.

An Opposition day debate before Christmas would enable us to contrast what we are doing and what the Chancellor will say in his statement with the absence of any plan now from the Opposition. They had plan B. That seems to have disappeared, along with the prospects of the shadow Chancellor. Such a debate would enable us to recall, in a compare and contrast way, what the Leader of the Opposition had to say when President Hollande was elected, which I always rather relish. He said that what President Hollande was going to do for France, Labour was going to do for Britain. In truth, that is a contrast that, like their plan B, the Opposition now do not want to talk about.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

Some 44 million people worldwide suffer with Alzheimer’s disease and it is estimated that the number will treble by 2050. May we have a debate on dementia to see what more we can do to help carers, those who have a loved one suffering with Alzheimer’s, and research and development in order to give hope to people suffering with Alzheimer’s?

[Mr Lansley]

Members across the House will share with my hon. Friend a sense of the importance that we attach to making further progress in the research into the causes of dementia and its treatment, and the way in which we as a society respond to those with dementia. I was very pleased that the Backbench Business Committee was able to schedule a debate before the G8 summit next Wednesday. I hope that with the progress we are making in research on dementia and its treatment, there may be further opportunities in the new year.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s policy to exacerbate the north-south divide following the announcement, which advantages the Leader of the House’s constituency, that the A14 will not be tolled but the Mersey Gateway will?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was perfectly clear that it is entirely normal to toll estuarial crossings. If the A14, which passes through my constituency, had been tolled, it would have been the only main route tolled in circumstances where there was no viable alternative.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

My constituent William Irving, a former soldier, has been held in prison in India for more than seven weeks without charge, along with five other British citizens. May we have a statement from the Foreign Office on what efforts are being made to try to secure the release of Mr Irving and his fellow prisoners and to look after their health and welfare, bearing in mind that he has been ill with dysentery?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand why my hon. Friend raises this importance issue for his constituents—other Members of the House are in a similar situation. Consular officials have been providing assistance since the men were detained, liaising closely with the Estonian and Ukrainian embassies, as nationals of those countries are also involved. They have visited them four times to confirm their welfare and ensure that they have access to legal representation. We are also providing ongoing support to their families in the UK.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will know that the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, refuses to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee. May we have a debate or a discussion on how we can ensure that he is not abusing his position as a Lord to avoid appearing before the Committee, which wishes to talk about scrutiny in relation to European elections and BBC bias?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware of what the hon. Lady is talking about. I note from Lord Patten’s correspondence with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee that he expressly did not rely on the fact that he is a Member of the House of Lords in this regard. I will have conversations with the Committee’s Chair and the BBC on the matter, because there is a difference between independence for the BBC, which we absolutely must respect, and accountability, which should enable this House to ask reasonable questions.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that anybody who is invited to appear before a Committee of this House should do so. No one, however senior, should imagine him or herself above such scrutiny. That is a very important principle.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of a proposal for a large offshore wind farm by the Navitus Bay company off the coast of Bournemouth. In the light of the Government’s announcement this week on onshore and offshore wind farm subsidy, my constituents are profoundly concerned that the development could go ahead. It has been shown that a third of summertime visitors would not return during the five-year period of construction and that 14% would never return. Will he provide an opportunity for the Government to reassure my constituents that some offshore wind farms are, and remain, as inappropriate as some onshore ones?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes his point straightforwardly and forcefully. I will talk with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government about that, particularly the extent to which the points he raises are material considerations in relation to planning.

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

I am sure that the Leader of the House will have seen that Huddersfield university won the university of the year award last Friday, and, indeed, that last year it was the entrepreneurial university of the year. May we have a debate on student loans and the fact that the sell-off of student loans will be a very hard lesson for those people who owe money and will now be chased by some of the hard men of the loan business?

[Mr Lansley]

I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Huddersfield university—as the Member of Parliament who represents Cambridge university, I am glad to do so. On his other point, I remind him that, notwithstanding the sale of the student loan book, the regulations and provisions that apply to the recovery of student loans will be no different for any future owner than they are for the Government now.

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

May I congratulate the Government on their announcement this week about keeping energy prices down and South West Water on its announcement that it will freeze water prices for the next two years? Unfortunately, Labour-controlled Plymouth city council is considering putting up council tax next year despite the Chancellor’s announcement that that does not need to happen. May we have a debate on this before the budgets are set by local authorities such as Plymouth?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend, like me, might have been surprised that when Labour Members responded to a statement on water bills they appeared completely to ignore the fact that this Government had taken steps to ensure that water bills in the south-west were kept down through substantial support to the local water company. This Government have enabled council tax to be frozen right through this Parliament. That is very significant, as is the fact that council tax doubled under the previous Labour Government. However, this is of course something that local authorities have to take up.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This week millions of Royal Bank of Scotland customers suffered inconvenience and embarrassment when they could not use their bank cards. The week before, it was revealed that businesses have been forced into bankruptcy so that RBS could seize their assets. May we have a debate on what is happening in this state-owned bank?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot offer a debate at the moment, but he will appreciate that during next Wednesday’s debate on banking reform issues may well arise relating to banking standards and the performance of the banks, including those in which the public sector—the Government—has a substantial stake, and he may wish to use that opportunity to discuss them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In about 34 minutes we will hear the autumn statement for the second time. I am sure the Leader of the House is as horrified as other Members about how much of it has already been leaked. Previously, the Government have said that this has been due to Liberal Democrat Ministers leaking the information. May we have a statement next week on this very serious matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand that, in so far as he is surmising anything, he is in fact speculating. We have not heard the statement yet, so let us hear it. I am sure that the recommendations set out in the Macpherson review back in July have been adhered to by the Chancellor and the Treasury. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

How can it possibly be right for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to announce a complete restructuring of universal credit by means of a written statement and give it to the press two hours before he gives it to us, and to answer questions from the press before we are able to ask questions? Does not the Leader of the House understand the fundamental principle of his job, which is to make sure that we are able to ask questions? For instance, we would like to ask whether, when the Secretary of State says in his written ministerial statement that the majority of the legacy cases will be moving to universal credit in 2016 and ’17—the majority, note, not all—he really means that he would like to apologise to the House because he got it wrong two weeks ago when he said that this was on budget and on time?

[Mr Lansley]

I will be responsible for discharging my responsibility to the House and the hon. Gentleman can be in charge of his. It is important for the House to recognise two things. First, putting a written ministerial statement before the House is announcing something to the House; it should not be disregarded. Secondly, on the day of the autumn statement it is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who will be seeing the Select Committee on Monday, not to be making an oral statement.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The most effective way of reducing incidents of stroke disease is by identifying and treating atrial fibulation. May we have a debate on improving access to and take-up of newly developed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved drug treatments?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but this is an important issue. My hon. Friend will appreciate that during my several years as chair of the all-party group on stroke, it was one of the issues that emerged. We are making progress on a wide front in relation to the improvement of stroke services and on fast identification and treatment of stroke. On prevention, I hope that what my hon. Friend says about AF will be emphasised in our discussions about improving stroke services for the future.

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

The overseas territories joint ministerial council took place last week and covered a huge number of issues that are of mutual interest to the UK Government, this Parliament and the overseas territories. Could a Foreign Office Minister be asked to come to the House to give a full statement so that we can hold them to account?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the second joint ministerial council took place in London on 26 November and that its overall theme was jobs and growth. The meeting covered a range of subjects and an ambitious communiqué outlining the commitments made was issued at its conclusion. The United Kingdom’s relationship with the overseas territories is a very important one. The Government would welcome any proposal for a debate on the progress made at the council. The hon. Gentleman may wish to encourage colleagues to go before the Backbench Business Committee at some point to seek time for a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 845 on the future of the Harlow respite care centre for children with special needs?

[That this House acknowledges that the Maples children’s respite centre in Harlow is an integral part of the community that provides comfort and security to families and children with special needs; notes that Councillor Madden, Cabinet member for Essex County Council, has said that no final decision about the centre’s future will be taken unless alternative services that meet local needs are in place; strongly believes however that the Maples respite centre should be kept open as it is unlikely that similar alternative provisions will be found and that its closure would be detrimental to its hard-working staff, volunteers, parents and children for which the Maples acts as a lifeline; commends the petition (www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/essex-county-council-ensure-the-future-of-the-maples-respite-centre) that has been signed by 1,076 people; and urges Essex County Council to take note of the strong feelings of Harlow residents.]

May we have a statement on the future of the Maples home in Harlow, which provides respite for children with special needs and their families? Essex county council is currently consulting on the future of the centre and possible closure. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister responsible to look into the matter and see what support is available for the centre?

[Mr Lansley]

Once again my hon. Friend raises an issue of importance to his constituents, as evidenced by the number of signatories to the petition. He will know that short-break services are a priority for this Government. We know how they support children with disabilities and their families, which is why £800 million has been made available to local authorities for short breaks and why we have introduced a short-breaks duty requiring all local authorities to provide such services for disabled children and young people. As my hon. Friend will know, it is for local authorities to decide, in collaboration with local health services, the level and type of support they will make available. It is encouraging that the cabinet member for Essex county council has given assurances that no final decision about the centre’s future will be taken unless alternative services are available that meet families’ needs. I hope that is of some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the complete disarray in NHS England, which is causing ever-lengthening delays and increasing concerns about the future of two greatly needed health centres in Orrell and Ashton?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but I do not accept remotely the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. Given that NHS England formally started its work in April this year, I think that she and Members across the House should support it in its difficult tasks.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

One of my constituents was forced to spend six months on unemployment benefit while he waited for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to process his medical, after which his large goods vehicle licence was returned to him. May we have a debate on the way in which the DVLA’s administration could be streamlined so that constituents like mine do not have to wait unnecessarily for extended periods at vast cost to the taxpayer?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, not least because I have a constituent who was in a similar position. If I may, I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport if they will look at the issue, because it is very difficult for those with medical conditions who have their driving licence suspended. If they recover, the failure to process the reacquisition of their driving licence quickly can, at the very least, be of considerable and serious inconvenience to them and potentially costly.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Minister after Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and trumpeted the number of new jobs, but they are not able to say how many of them are part time or short hours, whether they arise from public sector reclassification or are zero-hours contracts. May we have a statement to clear this mess up?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, I have heard my hon. Friends making it very clear that there are statistics relating to the number of those in part-time employment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and others have definitions of things such as zero-hours contracts. There were never statistics under the previous Government. I am not sure why the hon. Lady imagines it is a fault on the part of this Government that we do not have those defined statistics, but she is right to say that we come to this Dispatch Box to trumpet the number of new jobs: there are 1.4 million more private sector jobs under this Government.

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

A few weeks ago, St Jude’s storm resulted in several thousand households in Suffolk being disconnected from electricity. The storm that is gathering in Scotland today is coming to Suffolk, with the entire coastline under a severe flood warning. I know that the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to chair a Cobra meeting. When will the Secretary of State be able to come to the House to make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Ministers are very aware of the risk associated with a surge tide and the risk that the current storm presents to my hon. Friend’s constituency and others. Many Scottish Members’ constituents are already experiencing the effects of the storm. I cannot at this stage say when the Secretary of State may be able to update the House. At the moment, he is engaged in considering precisely how every measure that might be taken is taken to help support those who may be affected.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

If we cannot have a statement on the universal credit debacle, may we please have one on exemption from the bedroom tax? Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that disabled people are exempt, although the Leader of the House mischievously did his best to attribute to him words that he never uttered. In reality, they are not exempt, and the extra money put into discretionary housing payments is nowhere near enough to make up the shortfall.

[Mr Lansley]

I have heard Work and Pensions Ministers repeatedly respond extremely well to issues of the kind raised by the hon. Gentleman, in response not only to questions but to debates initiated by the Opposition.

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

The Airports Commission under Howard Davies is due to report this month on a shortlist of options in relation to the future of aviation capacity across the UK. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on that in the new year, because it affects all regional airports as well as London?

[Mr Lansley]

We are anticipating the publication of Howard Davies’s interim report, and I am sure that the House will want to consider it. May I, however, gently remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that following the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, issues that they consider priorities can be debated by the House through an application to that Committee?

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Conservative North Lincolnshire council has said that it will not support people hit by the bedroom tax who smoke. May we have a debate in the House about how local authorities are or are not supporting people hit by the bedroom tax with discretionary housing payments?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions say this in the House, that additional resources have been made available to local authorities to help those with specific additional needs as a result of the spare room subsidy. In relation to precisely what local authorities are doing, I was not aware of the North Lincolnshire example, but I will of course speak to my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about whether they are aware of it and can respond to him.

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

I have absolutely no requirement for assistance with payment protection insurance, insulating my property or making a claim for an accident that was not my fault, yet I am inundated with phone calls offering me such assistance, as are people up and down the country. In the light of the publication today of a report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of the sterling work by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) to get a debate in Back-Bench time, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to report on how we can deal with nuisance calls?

[Mr Lansley]

It may be little comfort to my hon. Friend to know that he is not alone, but I hope that it may be some comfort to know that tackling unsolicited marketing or nuisance calls is being addressed through the measures in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport strategy paper that was published on 30 July, as he will recall. An action plan will be published shortly to set out future plans. I hope that it will be possible for Ministers to update the House during the type of debate that he mentioned.

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

Foreign students who get places at British universities but do not have good enough maths and English get extra coaching, but British students who are predicted to get good A-level grades but have grade C in GCSE maths do not receive the same support. Given the Government’s professed support for social mobility, will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to come to the House to make sure that that anomaly is dealt with?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. When I was at my old university in Exeter recently, I saw the substantial facility that it has to provide additional support to those whose first language is not English. If I may, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science to respond to her on the point that she raises.

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

Why are the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill being delayed? It would surely make sense for the House to vote on whether to extend the immigration restrictions for Bulgaria and Romania in advance of their being lifted on 1 January.

[Mr Lansley]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Immigration Bill is not being delayed; it is simply that there is a lot of legislation before the House. In the future business before Christmas, I have announced progress on five Government Bills. Let me also explain to him that if there was a debate on the Immigration Bill in this House before Christmas, it would not necessarily have an impact on the timing of Royal Assent, because this is the first House that the Bill must pass through, not the second. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced important measures on this matter last week. I am therefore hopeful that regulations will be laid before the House shortly.

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

I was visited recently by a constituent who has terminal cancer. His condition will not lead to immediate death and he wishes to visit family and friends in Spain. However, he is unable to obtain affordable travel insurance. May we have a statement on what help the Government can offer to bring down the cost of travel insurance for individuals who find themselves in that situation?

[Mr Lansley]

That sounds as though it is a particularly difficult and distressing situation for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If I may, I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether they can help.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Isa Muazu has been held for months in Harmondsworth detention centre and has been on hunger strike for more than 100 days. He is ill and cannot stand or see properly. The Home Secretary tried to deport him nonetheless, but the plane had to fly back from Nigeria. May we have a debate on why the Home Secretary has spent well over £100,000 on trying to deport a seriously ill man?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, ask the Home Secretary to respond to my hon. Friend on that specific case. Generally speaking, it is her responsibility to enforce the law, including immigration law, and she does that robustly.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a reader of fiction, but if he is I recommend that over the Christmas period, he read the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence. Once he has read that paper, I urge him to come back and offer some time for a debate on it in this House.

[Mr Lansley]

As it happens, I have read the Scottish White Paper. Having read it, I was surprised to find that assumptions within it were overturned within hours. The House might want to seek an opportunity to debate that paper, not least through the Backbench Business Committee, because it is important to Members across the House.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In Harrow, reported crime is down by 10%, the clear-up rate is up by 22% and the number of police on our streets will be at record levels next March. May we have a debate on crime and policing so that we can proclaim the good news?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers will be. I cannot promise a debate straight away because the amount of legislation is putting such pressure on Government time that it is precluding us from debating the many successes of this Government, of which the reduction in crime is an important one.

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

Hundreds of thousands of people will have to use food banks this Christmas, so I welcome the fact that there will be a debate on them. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to attend that debate? To support the case for that, perhaps he could use today’s Daily Mirror, in which Sara Broadbent, who has just had her hours cut from 16 to five, says:

“David Cameron lives just down the road and he could do a lot more for us… I’d like to be able to look after my own kids and have food in the cupboards but there are times…when you just can’t do it.”

Should the Prime Minister not account for the cost of living crisis over which he is presiding?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman noted, the Opposition have chosen that subject for debate and Ministers will respond. In that context, I think Members across the House will support food banks and charities that support others who are in need this Christmas, and rightly so. Last Saturday, along with many others in my constituency I participated in a food collection at Tesco to support the Cambridge food bank.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on transparency in local government? In the past week, Labour councillors voted en bloc in Kirklees to approve a supermarket in Slaithwaite, despite local concerns and a last-minute plea from 39 local businesses. Members in this House are held accountable in a transparent way for how they vote. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local councillors should be held accountable for the way they vote and decisions they make on behalf of our local communities?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Councillors should be accountable for the decisions they make—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are helpfully making the point that if Labour councillors are making decisions that are contrary to the views and interests of my hon. Friend’s constituents, come the next election those constituents will have an opportunity to do something about it.

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

This week 100,000 people signed a petition calling for a cumulative impact assessment on the effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on sick and disabled people. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in this Chamber on that cumulative impact assessment?

[Mr Lansley]

I did, of course, write to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee noting that that petition had passed the point of 100,000 signatures. At the meeting on Tuesday that Committee received a submission from Members about a debate on that subject. It is now not for me but for the Backbench Business Committee to decide whether a debate should be timetabled.

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

Members across the House are helping constituent businesses with issues of bank bullying—I currently have cases involving Barclays, Lloyds and Yorkshire Bank. In the light of the Tomlinson report, may we have a debate on how we deal with that issue, which is high on the agenda of our constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that, I reiterate, is germane to the debate on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Lords amendments to that Bill will be debated in this House on Wednesday, I hope the important issue my hon. Friend raises may form part of that debate.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Many thousands of households in Wales and England are concerned about the recent registration of manorial rights, including 4,000 households in Ynys Môn. May we have a debate on that issue, and will the Government give reassurance and information so that we protect the rights of ordinary people in Anglesey and beyond?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that registration of notice of manorial rights at the Land Registry is not related to rights relating to shale gas or oil. The Petroleum Act 1988 vests all rights to the nation’s petroleum resources in the Crown. Manorial rights have a distinct legal history, but can be legitimately bought and sold in the same way as other property rights. The registration of notice of manorial rights records existing rights so that people know they exist; it does not create new rights although it does, of course, help prospective buyers avoid what would otherwise be hidden rights. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that property owners who were unaware of existing mining rights when the notices arrived may have been alarmed by that, but I recommend they obtain legal advice, which should reassure them. If Members of the House have evidence of problems, my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice will be happy to help.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the shadow Chancellor? After all, he claimed we are entering a triple-dip recession, that we should model our economy on that of France, and that we can reduce debt by borrowing more.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was in fact not just the shadow Chancellor but the Leader of the Opposition who, as I recall, said that what President Hollande is going to do for France, Labour would do for Britain. We are looking forward to a demonstration of the increasingly disappearing shadow Chancellor and his plan B.

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

Average weekly gross pay for women in my constituency has fallen by £12.30 since 2010, while long-term female unemployment has risen by 144% since May 2010—[Interruption.] May we have a debate on why the Government do not have one wise man, let alone three?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry that I did not hear all that the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I remind him that we have record employment for women, and 1.5 million women on low earnings are out of tax all together as a consequence of the increases in the personal allowances under the coalition Government.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 2 December—Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions relating to Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders) and Select Committee statements.

Tuesday 3 December—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on “Cyber Bullying”, followed by a debate entitled “Persecution of Christians in the 21st Century”. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party.

Wednesday 4 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by Opposition day [unallotted half day]. There will be a debate on business rates. The debate will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.

Thursday 5 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, which will be followed by a general debate on modern-day slavery. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 December will include:

Monday 9 December—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 December—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Wednesday 11 December—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.

Thursday 12 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate colleagues who have participated in Movember this month? I applaud their efforts and labours for an important cause, although I must admit that I find some of them a bit disconcerting. Some of them even remind me that this Government are trying to take us back to Victorian times.

Yesterday, the Government proposed some very sensible measures to toughen rules for European Union migrants, including banning out-of-work benefits and quadrupling fines for bosses not paying the minimum wage. Given that Labour proposed some of these changes eight months ago, will the Leader of the House tell us why it has taken the Government so long to announce any action? Will he confirm that none of the Government’s proposed changes will be in place by 1 January, when work restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians will end? Much of the Government’s plan could be implemented using secondary legislation. Given that we have 13 days of parliamentary time remaining before the Christmas recess, it is clear that we could work together to get some of these sensible changes in place. So will he agree to work with us to get this done in time?

Despite stuffing the other place with 158 new coalition peers since the election, on Tuesday the Government lost yet another key vote on the licensing of bankers. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will now accept that important amendment and keep it in the Bill? The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill has provided yet another lesson in how not to legislate. After ignoring our request to delay the Bill until after the publication of the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Government presented this place with a shell of a Bill, which has now grown fivefold in the other place. That makes it a very different piece of legislation from the one that we scrutinised in this place, and it is a disgrace that the Government have developed a Bill of such importance in the unelected Chamber while treating this place with contempt. Will the Leader of the House give his assurance that when the Bill returns, we will have more than sufficient time to debate properly the vast amounts of it that are new?

In a week of spectacular U-turns, perhaps the Chancellor’s damascene conversion on payday loans was the most surprising. After all, the Government had voted three times against a cap. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it was the prospect of yet another defeat on the banking Bill that changed the Chancellor’s mind? It seems that the Chancellor is developing a proclivity for ideological flexibility. Perhaps it is just a public relations strategy to say one thing and then do another. After all, he said he would stop tax evasion but he refused to close the giant eurobond loophole. He attacked unacceptable City bonuses and then went to Brussels to fight for them. He promised to cut borrowing, but he has borrowed more in three years than Labour did in 13. He said that we are all in it together, but prices have risen faster than wages in 40 of the 41 months since he has been Chancellor. Will the Leader of the House now give us a debate in Government time on the widening gap between this Government’s rhetoric and the reality?

We are all eagerly awaiting next Thursday when two parliamentary Titans can tussle over the key issues of the day—and that is just the business statement. I know that colleagues will be keen to ensure that they are in the Chamber to hear the unfailingly witty ripostes of the Leader of the House. Will he confirm which will come first next Thursday, the autumn statement or the business statement?

This week has revealed that we have a Chancellor who thinks it is Marxist to intervene in energy prices, but positively Thatcherite to intervene in the payday lending market. We have a sports Minister who appears to know nothing about sport, and a Health Minister who did not know how to access a walk-in centre.

It is no wonder that coalition tensions have been rising, and that is only in the Tory party. Apparently 25 Conservative modernisers have been to visit the Prime Minister to warn him of a split if he abandons green levies. The Leader of the House must be wondering where it all went wrong for the Prime Minister and his modernisation project. The Prime Minister promised a big society and delivered the politics of division and fear, and now his self-styled successor, the Mayor of London, thinks greed is good and that some people are too stupid to be equal.

Today’s news that the Prime Minister is U-turning on his U-turn on plain packaging for cigarettes says it all. He is a Prime Minister running round and round in circles.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, and I join her in congratulating Members who have been participants in Movember. We shall, in some cases, regret the passing of their facial adornments. I suspect that not many of them will be persuaded to keep them on a permanent basis, but it is all in an important cause. I am sure that, across the House, we feel very strongly about the importance of supporting them in their endeavours to promote research into prostate and testicular cancers. We have made considerable progress, but there is much more to be done. I know that prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting men and if we can secure investment in research and treatment such as that characterised by successful breast cancer campaigns, men—and, I suspect, women—in this country and beyond will attach considerable importance to that.

The hon. Lady asked about migration and I heard the Home Secretary answer her questions yesterday in the course of a rather comprehensive statement of what the Government are doing. Considering that that statement was the answer to an urgent question asked by the shadow Home Secretary, it turned out to be an own goal. The Home Secretary made it very clear that we will put a bar on migrants claiming out-of-work benefits for the first three months, stop welfare payments after six months unless a claimant has a genuine chance of a job, stop migrant jobseekers claiming housing benefit to subsidise accommodation costs, and introduce further measures on the minimum wage. She also made clear—I heard her do it—those measures which would be in place by January.

The shadow Leader of the House asked for a debate on banking reform. I announced that the House would consider Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. We did not send a shell of a Bill to the other place—far from it. It was an important measure that ring-fenced everyday banking from investment banking, ensuring that banks are never again too big to fail. It reformed the failed tripartite system that we inherited from the Opposition. It is staggering that they are now trying to engage in procedural politics on the Bill. We, as a Government, are having to put in place a banking regulatory system that will not allow the appalling mess we inherited from the previous Government to occur again as that failed this country and beyond in a major way.

We quite rightly established the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Bill responded directly to it. We gave the commission an opportunity to consider the measures in the Bill as part of the scrutiny of it before its introduction and the commission produced a second report. It was never in anybody’s interest for the Bill not to be completed during this Session and so we used a mechanism whereby the second report was reflected in measures incorporated into the Bill in the House of Lords. That is perfectly reasonable and as the hon. Lady and the House will have gathered, we anticipate a full day’s debate on Lords amendments when the Bill returns to the House.

The hon. Lady also asked for a debate on the rhetoric and reality of the Chancellor’s policies. I would welcome such a debate as it would give us an opportunity to contrast not just rhetoric and reality but the rhetoric of the Labour party and the reality of Labour in office. Yesterday, Labour tried to talk about the economic policy of this Government but throughout the debate Labour Members failed to recognise or acknowledge the mistakes their party had made. The facts are simple and straightforward; for example, under a Labour Government there was a 7.2% reduction in the GDP of this country during the deepest recession we have seen in the past 100 years, which led to unprecedented deficits in this country. That was the consequence of a Labour Government. As for the rhetoric and reality of the Chancellor’s policies, I look forward to hearing him make the autumn statement next Thursday and set out how this coalition Government are making tremendous progress—not least by assisting people in this country through more jobs, reduced taxation, controls on fuel duties, a council tax freeze available to councils through the whole of this Parliament, and the largest increases in the state pension we have ever seen—in helping families with the cost of living, which the Opposition would signally have been unable to do had they continued to borrow and spend in the way that they did in the past. It has always been the same old Labour: spend, borrow and see the economy of this country collapse.

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

May we have an urgent debate on the variability in the diesel and petrol prices that our constituents are often forced to pay? Prices in Leighton Buzzard are often 5p to 6p a litre more than those in surrounding areas. Tesco, for example, charges considerably less in Milton Keynes and Dunstable than in Leighton Buzzard. Does the Leader of the House think there is an onus on companies such as Tesco and Morrisons to treat all their customers fairly?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes because his constituency and mine are not far apart. I quite often note the difference in prices as I go around the country. Of course, that is happening for a simple reason—there are different markets in different parts of the country. So I have noticed in the past that if one is buying petrol in the Wirral close to where it is refined it might be a little cheaper than in Cambridgeshire. But the truth is that, wherever people are buying petrol or diesel, they are buying it 13p a litre cheaper than would have been the case if the fuel duty escalator introduced by the Labour party was still in place. That is £7 for an average fill-up.

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

May we have a debate on the appalling employment practices of Amazon, which were demonstrated on “Panorama”, so that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills can set out what action he intends to take to stop those practices and stop Britain slipping into some form of sweatshop economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate, but if the hon. Gentleman is in his place he will have an opportunity to raise those issues with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills next Thursday when they respond to questions. None of us in the House believes that we have or should have a sweatshop economy. That is why over many years we have instituted employment protection measures, including a minimum wage. It is important that it is enforced. It is also important that we create jobs, and in this economy since the general election we have created 1.4 million private sector jobs. That should never be forgotten.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May we have a debate about Somerset county council’s rush to axe children’s centres when it has done a skewed consultation, questions were loaded, and the staff have been gagged? Its report shows that it does not even know how many children are affected, and the only failings in the Ofsted report for the two children’s centres that I have seen were caused by the council’s failings to resource them. Last week the council agreed that it would have a four to six-week period of further consultation with parents and children, and yesterday it suddenly announced that it would make the decision today. It is absolutely not fair on the children or parents.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that there are statutory requirements about the character of a consultation relating to local authority proposals to reconfigure children’s services. I am not in a position to comment directly on the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, but I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to respond to what she has said.

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

Across the House, we all believe in supporting social impact enterprises and social innovation. May we have a quick debate—I know that it would have to be very urgent—about the barriers to crowdfunding that are coming through from the Financial Conduct Authority? Can we do something quickly to keep alive the ability of people to invest in local enterprises in their community?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury or perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who has responsibility as the Minister for civil society, to respond to that point. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members across the House who share enthusiasm for social enterprises may wish to bring the subject before the Backbench Business Committee, which has opportunities for debates not only here but in Westminster Hall.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on equal pay for women? Does the Leader of the House agree that in the 21st century it is unacceptable that far too many women in the private sector are paid less than men despite doing the same job?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members might seek to have a debate in due course. My recollection—I may be incorrect—is that the Office for National Statistics, for technical reasons, has not published the latest data on the gender pay gap, but will do so in December. We share the view that, while the gap may have reduced, we have not achieved what we need to achieve. It may be something on which he and others, in the light of the latest data, may wish to seek a debate from the Backbench Business Committee.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the situation facing people living in the private rented sector, many of whom have six-month tenancies, great difficulty getting repairs done and the danger that the tenancy will be ended if they complain to the landlord? In particular, those living in central London, where benefit levels do not meet the excessive rent levels, can then be forced to move out, leading to a social cleansing of whole swathes of our communities. It is a serious issue facing a lot of people, so it should be dealt with by the Government, not on a Back-Bench business day.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree that those are important issues, and I know that we will continue to have opportunities to debate them. Many issues that are for the Government to respond to are debated in time granted by the Backbench Business Committee. I do not subscribe to the view, and neither does the House, that Government time is allocated to discuss things that are the Government’s responsibility and Back-Bench business time is allocated to discuss things that are not. On the contrary, Back-Bench business time is available, as indeed is Opposition time, so that Members can raise issues that are predominantly for the Government to respond to.

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

On Wednesday that well-known press organ the Plymouth Herald reported that the Secretary of State for Transport had said that he would look closely at improving the rail and road links to Plymouth following the closure of Plymouth airport a couple of years ago. Specifically to deliver growth, I have been campaigning for the A303 to be dualled, for trains to get into Plymouth by 9 am, rather than 11.17 am, and for more train journeys to and from London. After repeated failed requests for a debate, will my right hon. Friend support my calls for a debate on this important matter, or at the very least may we have a statement from the Secretary of State?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an issue that is important not only to his constituents, but to those of other Members in that travel corridor in the south-west. Given that wider interest, he might find that there is a wider constituency of Members who might be able to seek a debate. I certainly encourage him in that regard. He knows that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was with him in his constituency over the summer to discuss those issues. I will of course ask him to respond further, but it is very much in the minds of Ministers, not least because they have a feasibility study looking at some of the most notorious hot spots on roads across the country, including the A303, the A30 and the A358 in that travel corridor.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is presiding over increasing chaos in his Department, with a black hole existing where the independent living fund used to be, and there are still questions about interference with the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Leader of the House arrange for him to come here and speak for himself?

[Mr Lansley]

I seem to remember that the Secretary of State was here last week—on Monday, I think—to answer questions and speak for himself and for the Government, and I am delighted to say that when he does so he contrasts the situation in which we are creating jobs with the one under Labour in which jobs were not being created. He contrasts the situation in which every time people move off benefits and into work, work pays, which was not the case under Labour, ensuring that there is serious benefit associated with working. He also talks about the fact that we have effective systems, including under the Work programme, that are delivering effective routes back into work for the long-term unemployed.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 784 on fuel duty?

[That this House welcomes the Government's actions cutting fuel duty in 2011 and the freeze in fuel duty until the end of the present Parliament announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and urges the Government, if the economic conditions allow, to continue to cut costs for hard-pressed motorists and to consider a further fuel duty cut.]

May we have a debate on fuel duty, given that in yesterday’s debate on the cost of living the Opposition forgot to mention that they increased fuel duty 12 times and that our Government have frozen it in the lifetime of this Parliament? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Chancellor to go even further and cut fuel duty in the forthcoming Budget?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and have seen his early-day motion. I thoroughly endorse the congratulations that the Financial Secretary offered him in yesterday’s debate in recognition of his campaigning. Of course, matters relating to the future of fuel duty are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he has made it clear that by the end of this Parliament, as a consequence of the decisions he has already announced, motorists will be paying 20p per litre less on petrol and diesel duty than would have been the case under Labour’s fuel duty escalator.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Last week people in Rochdale commemorated the Holodomor famine that occurred in Ukraine, killing 7 million people in one of the most horrifying episodes in European history. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be fitting on this 80th anniversary to debate recognition of the Holodomor as genocide?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the Holodomor was an horrific man-made disaster of unimaginable scale. We recognise the appalling human tragedy that occurred and its importance in the history of Ukraine and Europe. The Government pay tribute to the people who continue to work to keep alive the memory of all those who perished in the Holodomor. There is a complex debate about this, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. For an explanation of that, I would, if I may, direct Members to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe in reply to a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on 11 June.

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

The most recently published unemployment data show that the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency is among the top 1% in the country for falling long-term unemployment. May we have a debate about the progress that has been made in getting people back to work, particularly the long-term unemployed?

[Mr Lansley]

The more we can show, particularly to those who are long-term unemployed, the benefits of the Work programme, the better it is. We have record numbers of vacancies. While we have seen a modest reduction in the number of long-term unemployed, we want that number to come down further, and the Work programme has been increasingly successful in achieving that. According to industry figures, 383,000 people have started work, and we have reached the point where 168,000 have found lasting work for more than six months. That represents tremendous progress so far, but we want to achieve more.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

Given that £1.5 million-worth of donations from private health care companies resulted in £1.5 billion-worth of NHS contracts for those companies, and that the private supper arrangements with the Tory party have resulted in donations of £1.5 million to the Conservatives, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House on who these anonymous donors are and what exactly has been paid for?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is completely wrong in all her assertions. For 20 years in the Conservative party it has been clear that we do not take anonymous donations and we do not take donations to which strings are attached. It is absolutely not true to say that donations lead to contracts in the NHS. Those contracts are administered independently and fairly, and relationships with Ministers before they came into office and while they are in office have absolutely no bearing on that. Indeed, the number of private sector contracts in the NHS has not increased overall since the election.

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

On a recent visit to the Jobcentre Plus that serves my constituency, I was told that the long-term unemployed are now finding jobs and, equally importantly, keeping them. May we therefore have a debate on the success of the Work programme in getting the long-term unemployed—a group abandoned by Labour—into long-term, sustainable employment?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. The Work programme is the largest welfare-to-work programme since the 1930s. What he describes in his constituency is very important; it replaced a patchwork of poorly performing and expensive schemes under the Labour Government. We expect 2.5 million people to be supported over five years. What we saw under Labour, as we have seen under every Labour Government, is an increase in unemployment. Under this coalition Government we are seeing a substantial reduction in unemployment and, even more importantly, a record level of employment.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

On Monday the Government accepted the position of Labour Front Benchers on capping high-cost credit, ahead of certain defeat in the other place. Yesterday the Government accepted many of the proposals of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in order to take the wind out of a Government Back-Bench rebellion. Today the Government seem to have U-turned on tobacco plain packaging, again ahead of certain defeat in the other place. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in this House on why the Government seem to have run out of ideas?

[Mr Lansley]

All the hon. Gentleman is asserting is that what the Government are doing is supported by the Opposition. Frankly, I am pleased about that.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the future of independent petrol retailers and the important role they play in our local infrastructure and in delivering security of supply, especially in our rural areas?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate, but I think one would be useful, because what my hon. Friend says is true, especially in more rural areas. There has, of course, been some notable erosion of the number of independent petrol retailers. The situation is very difficult and I hope they will hear what my hon. Friend has said as some encouragement to them that we recognise the contribution they make in rural communities.

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

The Leader of the House will recall the tragic deaths of baby Daniel in Coventry and of baby P. Would it not be fitting to have some form of national memorial or new proposals for dealing with child abuse, given the cutbacks to local authority budgets?

[Mr Lansley]

I do remember, as will other Members, those tragic events and others like them. Personally, I think that the most important memorial we can achieve is to ensure that our child protection and safeguarding arrangements are as effective as we can possibly make them. We know we are not there yet. We have made progress, but we have much more to do to make that happen. I hope we can achieve that so that children can be genuinely safe wherever they are in the country.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Following on from the urgent question, may we have a debate on Government inquiries into decision making? Surely it cannot be right to farm out important decisions to unelected and unaccountable people. If Ministers are not capable of working out the evidence for themselves and coming to a conclusion, or do not have the guts to take responsibility for the decision they want to take, perhaps they should not be Ministers.

[Mr Lansley]

In the context of the urgent question, which I thought the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) answered superbly, what was announced was a review, but, as she made clear, the decision that will be made in the spring will be made by Ministers.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

When I made a plea yesterday for disabled people to be exempt from the bedroom tax, the Prime Minister said:

“Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 254.]

That is not only a direct contradiction of previously stated policy, it is at complete odds with what is happening in the real world. Can we have a statement from a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions either to correct the Prime Minister’s erroneous statement or, alternatively, to confirm that disabled people will indeed be exempt from this vicious and nasty bedroom tax that they should never have suffered in the first place?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say yesterday that those disabled people who need an additional room for overnight carers will not have the spare room subsidy removed in respect of that room. That has always been the case and the Prime Minister has made that clear on a number of occasions.

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

Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Standards Committee report on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), so that we can seek an apology from The Sunday Times?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Indeed, I think the House will be grateful to the Standards Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for an exceptionally thorough report. Having read it, I looked last weekend for any recognition in The Sunday Times of its findings, but found none. I rather regret that. If the press is rightly quick to criticise, it should equally be ready to admit when it has got it wrong.

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

May we have a debate about the cost of Government hospitality, particularly when this week Scottish celebrities are tripping over themselves to snub the Prime Minister’s lavish St Andrew’s day Union bash? We learned this morning that even the Prime Minister has decided to snub his own event. Does the Leader of the House have any idea who is actually going to attend?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to confess that I have no idea who will attend it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill is due to have its Second Reading tomorrow. It provides for a line of succession if the Prime Minister is killed or incapacitated. My apologies to you, Mr Speaker: I had listed you as third in line to succeed the Prime Minister, but unfortunately the powers that be have said that the House could not contemplate that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the first item of business tomorrow is concluded very early and that no filibustering prevents my Bill from being debated? Before he answers, I can let him know that, for his information, he is 20th on the list to succeed.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was not aware of that possibility under the Bill. It ever so slightly changes my perception of it, but I fear that I am still not entirely in favour of it, not least because it impinges on Her Majesty’s prerogatives under the constitution.

I am sure I am right in telling my hon. Friend that there is no prospect of filibustering in this House. It is a term of usage, but it is not in order to filibuster, and the Chair would not contemplate anything disorderly happening in the House.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to explain why the Government have refused to designate the rugby union world cup in 2015 as an event of national significance, as was done by the previous Government for the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012, so that tickets cannot be sold on the secondary ticketing market and hoovered up by touts, many of whom are involved in organised criminal gangs and in exploiting genuine rugby fans?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It might be simpler for them not to make a statement, but to respond to the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a shadow Minister—

[Clive Efford]

We would all like to hear.

[Mr Lansley]

Those Ministers may even want to put a copy of that reply in the Library of the House.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In April, the amount that someone can earn before paying income tax—the personal allowance—will rise to £10,000. Together with cumulative changes made since the coalition Government came to office, that will cut an individual’s income tax bill by £700 on average and take 3 million of our poorest people out of income tax altogether, including 4,025 people in the Kettering constituency. May we have a debate in Government time on personal income tax liability and the changes made since this Government came to power?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, of which people in his constituency will take positive note. Other constituencies have similar figures, and those changes in taxation are one reason why household disposable incomes are rising, which is important for people in tough times. On the opportunity to consider that further, I can say that it may well arise during questions following the Chancellor’s autumn statement next Thursday.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

To follow on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), may we have a debate on the sale of rugby union world cup tickets? The protection of Olympic tickets from resale helped to prevent ticket touting. Can we make the rugby world cup a party for ordinary people, not just for the rich who can afford tickets?

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said, I am happy to consult my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about their response on that issue.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the great concern about lifting restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians coming here after 1 January. Will he bring back the Immigration Bill on Report so that the House has a chance to consider my new clause to extend those restrictions?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will be aware that I of course announce future business every week, and the Immigration Bill will be part of a future business statement. My hon. Friend was in his place yesterday to listen to the Home Secretary, and he and Members from across the House will have heard about a substantial package of robust measures that should make a significant difference. In the light of figures on migration from within the European Union, it is terrifically important to make it clear that although we value the brightest and best coming here to study and work, as is absolutely right, we and other countries—Germany, France and the like—do not want that to turn into an ability for people to come to this country or other countries across the European Union for the purpose of accessing benefits.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come here and make a statement on intervention in failing markets, because he seems to be all over the shop? He has rightly given in to a cap on the cost of credit, but he will not listen on a freeze on energy bills.

[Mr Lansley]

The Chancellor will be here next Thursday.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Across London and the south-east, we have the scandal of accommodation being erected in gardens and landlords charging exorbitant rents from people who are not paying council tax but are receiving benefits. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on beds in sheds, so that we can examine that problem in detail and get some action?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Not least because I would like to hear more about the matter, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government to reply to him and to allow me to see that reply. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members may want to take further steps to secure a debate on the matter, for instance on the Adjournment.

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

Mr and Mrs Lloyd live in Little Addington in my constituency. They have been flooded twice because of a burst water main. Anglian Water accepts that the water main needs to be replaced, but it will not do the work until late in 2014. In the meantime, it has reduced the water pressure and people in the village cannot even have a proper shower. What advice can the Leader of the House give me on how we can hold Anglian Water to account and get it to change its mind and fix the problem?

[Mr Lansley]

Two things can be done. I will take it on myself to raise the issue with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to secure a response from the Government. Separately, the hon. Gentleman can speak to Anglian Water, as I have done myself. I have made it clear that I have supported its bids to the water regulator for a price control, which incorporates a commitment to investment, but equally that I will hold it to its commitment to make that investment, for instance to tackle the impact of sewerage issues on households. He may have similar measures that he wants to raise with the company in that way.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Tomorrow, the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, which I chair, will publish its report on the neglected tropical diseases that affect 1.4 billion of the poorest people on earth. May we have a debate about the excellent research that is carried out into those diseases in UK institutions such as the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Imperial college and many others? The UK is a world leader in such research.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right that we are a leader in research into tropical diseases and into treatments for and responses to them. Increasingly, with this Government’s commitment to dedicating 0.7% of our gross national income to overseas aid, we are also a leader in combating those diseases across the world.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to lead the “greenest government ever”. Now, he is ordering his officials to get rid of the “green crap”. May we have a debate on what the Prime Minister means by “green crap”?

[Mr Lansley]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was in his place for Energy and Climate Change questions, so he will have had an opportunity to hear from the Secretary of State that, through our policies, this Government are achieving greater energy efficiency and carbon reduction than any of our predecessors.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was quoting. In those circumstances, the use of such a word is perfectly orderly, but I would not want colleagues to think that it is to be encouraged ordinarily, for it is not.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the Spanish Prime Minister’s comment that a separate Scotland would be outside the European Union as well as outside the United Kingdom, may we have a debate on the possibility of a Scotland that is in not-so-splendid isolation?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Members of this House may well seek a debate on Scotland’s future in the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for them to go to the Backbench Business Committee to seek such a debate. It is instructive that in the space of two days, one of the central points in the document that the Scottish Government supposed would be the answer to all the questions has turned out to be based on false assumptions.

Business of the House (2 December)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for their good-natured contributions. It is entirely right that they should ask a number of questions about this motion as the time permits. It might be sensible if I make it clear that the business of the House motion has two main effects. First, it allows the House to take the two motions together for debate. Given that both relate to the work of the Backbench Business Committee, that seemed entirely sensible, as it would not otherwise have been possible for them to be brought together in one debate. Secondly, it specifies a maximum time for debate of one and a half hours, as my hon. Friends have noted. My view is that that is an entirely sensible period to allow for this debate. I freely admit that that is a judgment about the amount of time in which the issues that arise on these two motions are likely to be debated. My personal view is that the second motion, relating to the capacity for Select Committee reports to be launched, will not detain the House for long, as we have seen in practice, but it needs to be regularised in the structure of the provision of Backbench Business Committee time.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Leader of the House for the explanation he has given so far. If the motions had been tabled separately, he would almost certainly have granted one and a half hours for each of them. I do not think he would have granted a 45-minute debate; so a good compromise might be to extend the total time to three hours.

[Mr Lansley]

I think I have explained straightforwardly the judgment I have made, which is that the two motions relating to the work of the Backbench Business Committee in the House can be brought together perfectly sensibly. The latter motion, which I understand has the support of the Chairs of the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee, would not detain us at any great length. From my point of view, in order to protect Government time, it is important for us to ensure that we have allowed these motions to be brought forward for the House to debate. I freely admit to the House that it has been difficult to find Government time. The Backbench Business Committee, as my hon. Friends will know, does not have the capacity to use its own time to bring forward its own motions relating to itself. [Interruption.] That is a separate debate, but the Committee does not have that capacity under the Standing Orders. For these motions to be debated, Government time has to be used, and so I have looked, along with my colleagues, to ensure that we find such an opportunity. That has been difficult and we have made the appropriate judgment in securing the possibility of time.

It is entirely a matter of speculation as to whether the Mesothelioma Bill will absorb all the time through to 10 pm. The assumption being made is that it will do so, and if it does, so be it. If we commence this debate after the moment of interruption, I do not want it to extend for a long period beyond 10 pm, although I am happy for the debate to go beyond 10 pm if necessary.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point—he says that he does not want the debate to go on for more than one and a half hours after the moment of interruption. Unfortunately, that is not what his motion says. His motion says that it cannot go on for more than one and a half hours after it starts. Perhaps he would be willing to withdraw this business motion and table an amended motion saying that we could have the maximum of one and a half hours after the moment of interruption.

[Mr Lansley]

I point out to my hon. Friend that I have said two things. I have said, first, that I do not think that the debate requires more time than one and a half hours, and it is Government time that we have found for the purpose. I have said, secondly, that I would not wish it to go for more than one and a half hours beyond the moment of interruption. It does not follow that I think it requires three hours—in any circumstances.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch questioned the need for the Standing Orders to be amended. He knows that this motion exempts the business from both the moment of interruption and the Standing Order relating to deferred Divisions, and he will understand that Standing Orders are amended regularly for such purposes. The motions for debate next Monday result from the work of the Procedure Committee, and it is right that the House is given the opportunity to resolve those issues.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

To follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it would be a pity if we went home early on Monday, would it not? If the earlier debate were to finish well before 8.30 pm, it would be a shame if the House’s business came to an end before the normal hour of closure.

[Mr Lansley]

In scheduling business, my purpose is to ensure that there is time available for all the business. My objective is not to fill time. I say gently to my hon. Friends that they could have raised the matter when I announced provisional business at business questions last Thursday. They have done so in the past. They have raised issues after business questions and, on occasions, I have taken those issues away and we have amended the timing and the character of business. In this particular instance, I have to say that the motion relating to Back-Bench business has been on the Order Paper since before the summer recess. It relates to a report published by the Procedure Committee in November 2012. It has taken us more time than we would have wished to bring it forward. The Procedure Committee was rightly keen that we should schedule that business. We have done so, and we have given it adequate time. From my point of view, I hope that the House will allow the business to go forward as proposed in motion 9, which I moved yesterday.

Question put and agreed to.

Finances of the House of Commons

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I fear that we shall not complete the debate by 2.15—[Hon. Members: “Oh, go on!”] Tempting though that is. These are House matters, and it has been important to hear from Members about them; that is probably more important than hearing from me. I very much welcome the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for introducing it and for the work that he and his Committee have done. I should like to bracket him together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), the Chair of the Administration Committee, and to thank them both for enabling the House to have such confidence in their work and for managing the difficult decisions that will continually have to be made if we are to meet our savings targets.

I join Members across the House who have rightly expressed support for the way in which the House continues to manage the provision of services. Much continues to be achieved in delivering high-quality services to Members, to enable them to provide support for their constituents and to provide the representation here that is integral to our democratic process. We can do all that only because of the tremendous service and support that we receive from the staff of the House. Integral to the way in which the savings targets have been delivered has been the way in which the House staff have participated and offered their ideas on how the plans in the various Departments could be brought together.

Just over three years ago, the House of Commons Commission committed itself to reducing the administration estimate by at least 17% by 2014-15. I am pleased to see that we are on track to meet that target. This is related to the reduction in administration costs across government as a whole, including an average reduction in departmental budgets of 19% over four years, and a reduction in the overall administration costs in many Departments of one third in real terms. Of course, this is not only about administration costs; it is also about delivering efficiencies that can be reinvested to enable services to be qualitatively improved wherever possible.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) made a point about working together with the House of Lords on administration. I must point out that we do that already. Good examples of where that can be, and should be, done are security, procurement and back-office functions. We have to be careful, however, not to treat the separate governance of the two Houses as an “anomaly”, as I think she called it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has made some good points in this regard. It is not an anomaly; it is a constitutional fact, and it is not going to change in the immediate future, so far as I can see. I know from my conversations with the Leader of the House of Lords that the Lords want to work together with us, but we must respect their position and the need for the two Houses to make decisions for themselves. My hon. Friend rightly drew the analogy of two local authorities working together to share support services and back-office functions. We can and should do this, but there might well be governance issues and areas in which separate decisions will continue to be made.

I want to say a few words about restoration and renewal, but I also want to flag up that, given the nature of the decisions that will have to be made, and the integral character of the programme for the two Houses, we will clearly have to think about putting in place joint governance structures for the programme, which will extend across the two Houses.

[Thomas Docherty]

On the point about joint services, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether, on catering and retail, we should maintain the status quo or accept the position of the Administration Committee and bring them together?

[Mr Lansley]

I will leave it to the Committees to decide whether they want to bring forward proposals. Although I am perfectly willing to commit to talking to the Leader of the House of Lords, it is in neither of our gifts to put the two Houses together for such a purpose, but I know that there is a willingness in both Houses to look at where administration and support can be managed together.

[Andrew Miller]

May I bring to the Leader of the House’s attention how well the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology works on a bicameral basis? We brought it into the House in the early 1990s, and it has worked extremely well. It has become very strong in the recent past.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that, and of the example that the shadow Leader of the House gave of PICT. None the less, when we look at PICT, we must understand that there are certain areas of activity in which having two masters makes the business of trying to manage a service much more difficult. Effectively, we need to distinguish between the two sets of governors, as it were, and see whether they have entirely complementary objectives. It might be true for many areas of human resources, administration and back-office functions, but, in some other respects, the two Houses might not necessarily have the same objectives and, because of the nature of the governance, they must be given the opportunity to manage those separately.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue of pay, as did my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Pay is clearly a significant part of the overall management of cost. I know that there have been intensive discussions between management and trade unions, but too many issues remain unresolved for a deal to be done. The Management Board’s offer was a fair one, but it remains open to discussions with the trade unions. I hope that it is understood—I have had my own conversations with the staff about this—that there is no possibility of either the House or the staff winning from a court case. The net result of continuing with the court action will be a negative one overall, and it is in the interests of both sides to continue to try to reach a deal—if one can be reached.

I look forward to the Commission receiving the Finance and Services Committee’s report on what have been described as zero-hour contracts. I entirely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Strictly speaking, such contracts mean no minimum guaranteed hours and an obligation to undertake work at the request of the employee. There are no corresponding obligations from the employer in relation to the employee. That is not what we have, or what we are looking to have. We want a relationship with our staff that recognises that they and we have a legitimate reason for having flexibility and call-off contracts, but that should be on the basis of offering minimum hours if staff are looking for that and if it is consistent with the needs of the House. I am talking about areas such as visitor services and catering. We must always ensure that we meet our obligations in relation to annual leave, sick pay, training and, importantly, access to internal vacancies as and when they arise.

The House is asked to note the medium-term financial plan. I am tempted to take the position of the shadow Leader of the House and say nothing more about restoration and renewal. However, I will just say that it is a major issue. It is not simply that the expenditure is beyond the medium-term financial plan. We need to assure ourselves that the expenditure that we are undertaking on capital is not nugatory and will contribute beneficially to the overall programme. However, that does not require us to rush at defining what that overall and major programme looks like. Options should be properly explored and costed.

The involvement of the Major Projects Authority and Infrastructure UK in the review process is entirely sensible. Members in this House and in the other House will have potentially strong views on whether it is necessary to leave this place for a period. There could be a decant for a short time, or a long time, or no decant at all. No one would choose to decant; it is not something that any of us seek. None the less, we must understand that the risks and constraints on us if we do not do so may also be considerable. The independent assessment needs to give us a clear understanding of the options in terms of the practicalities, cost and potential value for money. The decision will not emerge from the options appraisal; it is a decision that we will have to make. We need to weigh the costs and complexities against how we manage our business and how the House continues to meet its obligations. Indeed, the relationship between Parliament and Government in trying to manage the business of government is a significant one, so we will only make a decision on the basis of that assessment and of Members being consulted. A decision will be made at the proper time. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was right to say that the decision is likely to be made not in this Parliament, but early in the next one.

We have had sensible discussions on the education centre. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can say that we have rightly identified how we can proceed in a way that represents the best available option. In principle, it is absolutely the right thing to do. We want as many young people as possible to have a direct experience of Parliament, which they will carry with them through their lives. We are aiming for 100,000 young people, but it is a shame that we cannot aim for 600,000. On that basis, we could say to every young person in this country that at some point during their school lives, they would have an opportunity to visit Parliament. To be as ambitious as we are is the very least that we should set out to do.

The House will have noticed in the medium-term financial plan that there is a reference to further pressures, including the Government’s agenda on public engagement, which we are keen to push forward. I will not elaborate, but I am talking about things such as the public reading stages of Bills. I am keen to work with colleagues from across the House on the further development of our petition system, including the Government e-petition system, which will make it easier for the public to engage with us. It will be readily accessible and will help the public to understand that they are petitioning Parliament and Government on their issues—not one or the other. There will be an enhanced expectation about and experience of the response, and a hope that the matter will be taken up and debated in Parliament.

On behalf of the Commission, I want to emphasise how useful this debate has been in helping us to consider the report of the Finance and Services Committee and to frame a response to it. Support for the motion today would represent an endorsement of a plan for the sustainable delivery of high-quality services to the House, while making the necessary and proportionate contribution to savings in administration expenditure in public services. I ask the House to support the motion.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 25 November—Second Reading of the Water Bill.

Tuesday 26 November—Remaining stages of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, followed by: the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Wednesday 27 November—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Cost of Living and the Government’s Economic Failure”, followed by a debate on business rates. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 28 November—Launch of a report from the European Scrutiny Committee on reforming the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons, followed by a debate on a motion relating to issues facing small businesses, followed by a general debate on the G8 summit on dementia. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 December will include:

Monday 2 December—Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions relating to Back-Bench business (amendment of Standing Orders) and Select Committee statements.

Tuesday 3 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 4 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 5 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 December—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 November will be:

Thursday 28 November—Debate on police procedures in dealing with mental health issues, followed by debate on retail and the high street.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. The Water Bill will finally have its Second Reading on Monday, after nearly three years of parliamentary hanging around. I find it extraordinary that, despite all that time to plan it, nothing in the Bill addresses the key issues of affordability and company taxation arrangements and that only one clause is devoted to flooding. When hard-pressed consumers are struggling to pay their bills, does the Leader of the House not agree that this long-delayed piece of legislation is a missed opportunity to take action on the cost of living crisis? Will he tell us when he expects the Government to set out a more comprehensive package to address flooding?

I note that the Conservative party spent last week’s short recess trawling the annals of its website and confining its pre-election promises to the outer reaches of the dark web in yet another Orwellian attempt to rewrite the past. One of the deleted lines was a promise by the Chancellor

“to harness the internet to help us become more accountable, more transparent and more accessible.”

You just could not make it up! After their recent jaunts to Beijing, I fear that they have fallen further under the spell of the Chinese Communist party than anyone realised.

In another deleted speech, the Prime Minister said that this would be

“the most family-friendly Government we’ve ever had”.

But what has happened? There are 578 fewer Sure Start centres since he got into power and the cost of child care has gone up by 30%. Instead of voting with us on Tuesday to extend child care provision, members of the influential Tory Free Enterprise Group spent their week plotting to slap an irrevocable 15% tax on children’s clothes, and it has emerged that the Government have presided over a cut in the cash going to maternity units.

John Major was right this week when he criticised the dominance of a public school elite in the upper echelons of public life, but how did the Prime Minister respond? He blamed poor young people for their lack of aspiration. How out of touch can this Government get? May we therefore have a debate on the increasing tendency of Ministers to blame the victims of their misguided policies for the plight they find themselves in?

The Leader of the House might remember another promise that mysteriously disappeared from the Conservative party website last week: no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. He might have seen yesterday’s report stating that his £3 billion reorganisation, which no one wanted and no one voted for, has weakened the NHS and put it in a worse position to deal with winter pressures. He will also remember another deleted promise:

“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS”.

But today’s figures show that we now have 6,642 fewer nurses. As the winter months arrive, I have heard that the Prime Minister is so worried about the way the Leader of the House’s successor as Secretary of State for Health is handling the NHS that he has personally taken control of accident and emergency planning, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate, in Government time and led by the Prime Minister, on how prepared the NHS is for the coming months?

In yet another deleted speech from 2009 the Prime Minister promised to cut the cost of politics. Despite the coalition agreement to cut them, the number of special advisers stands at a whopping 98, rather than the 72 in place when we left office. This week we have discovered that the Government are planning to let Cabinet Ministers appoint 10 more each, at a potential cost of £16 million. Can the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Government on yet another broken promise? The Prime Minister might wish that he could erase the Bullingdon Club picture from the internet, but nothing prevented his donning a white tie and tails and standing behind a golden lectern in the City to announce that the cuts are not just for now but permanent. He used to pretend that he did not come into politics to make cuts, but now he has really let the mask slip. Is it not time to admit that the rebranding of the Tory party has been a total failure? It is just as toxic as ever. The Conservatives said, “Vote Blue, go Green.” They have even changed their logo to a tree. But now apparently they want to get rid of all—I have to use this phrase, Mr Speaker—the green crap. They said that they would reform our politics, but now in the lobbying Bill the Government are legislating to shut ordinary people out. They said that they believed in a big society, but now they just play the politics of division and the dog whistle. The Conservatives can delete what they like from their website, but the British people will not forget that they were sold a husky pup. It is no wonder that the planning Minister wants to delete their name as well.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. We are quite used to business questions being not really about the future business so much as what is currently off the top of the head of the Labour party, but it is normally a bit funnier. I will confine myself to the questions.

There was a question about the Water Bill. We will have the opportunity to debate that Bill on Monday. I think it is rather important that the Bill introduces, in addition to measures that will promote competition in the water industry and more rights for consumers, measures relating to flood insurance, which have been the subject of a detailed and difficult negotiation, but which give people most at risk of flooding considerable reassurance. I look forward to that point being made clear in the debate on Monday.

I am afraid that the shadow Leader of the House continues to propagate incorrect statistics relating to Sure Start centres. There are 49 fewer—about 1%. She should have heard what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister on Tuesday and the Prime Minister yesterday and corrected that fact.

I was not quite sure about the character of the debate that she asked for on the so-called public school elite. I am not sure whether I count myself in that elite. She may recall that I attended a public school on a direct grant, in exactly the same way as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) did. Whether he is a member of the public school elite, I am not sure. It will be entirely in keeping with the Labour party’s approach that, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, this is a manifestation of social mobility, whereas in my case it is a manifestation of exclusivity. I cannot imagine why that should be.

I am pleased that the shadow Leader of the House referred to young people. I am proud of what we are achieving in relation to young people. We have 1.5 million new apprenticeship starts since the election. We have a reduction of 93,000 in the claimant count for young people. We have the fewest young people not in education, employment or training. These are vital things, and we are doing more. What is being achieved with not only apprenticeships but the new traineeships will make a big difference to young people in the years ahead.

The hon. Lady referred to the NHS and preparations for the winter. She used another incorrect statistic. The reforms of the NHS did not cost £3 billion; they cost £1.5 billion and, by the end of this Parliament, will have delivered savings of £5.5 billion and £1.5 billion of reductions each year on a continuing basis. It is precisely because, in addition to that, the NHS is focused on delivering £17 billion of efficiencies that are able to be reinvested, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in recent weeks been able to allocate £250 million to address some of the greatest pressures in accident and emergency departments and only yesterday made it clear that he would make £150 million more available to tackle those difficulties.

We all know that there are staffing shortages in A and E departments. I inherited those when I came into office as Secretary of State for Health, and I sat with the College of Emergency Medicine and said that we would do everything we could to employ more emergency doctors. However, we cannot just magic up more emergency doctors overnight; it takes a considerable time.

As for nurses, I do not think the shadow Leader of the House has been attending the House and listening carefully, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement on Tuesday that more nurses are now being employed in hospitals in relation to acute general and elderly beds, that according to Health Education England hospitals are anticipating recruiting 3,700 more nurses, and that the ratio of nurses to occupied beds has improved since the election so that there are one and a half to two hours additional time per nurse per occupied bed. I am afraid that, as ever, the facts do not support the Labour party’s approach.

There was one omission in the shadow Leader of the House’s requests regarding future business in that she did not ask for a statement or a debate on bank regulation. Labour Members often do that. As the Prime Minister rightly noted yesterday, they are very keen on inquiries but they do not appear very keen in this respect. I hope that there will be an early opportunity for us to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an inquiry. I think the public are very concerned about the failure of banking regulation that led to the appointment of a wholly improper person as the chair of Co-op Bank. If the Leader of the Opposition is able to tell the press that he is, I think he said, confident of the integrity of the Labour party’s relationships with Reverend Flowers and others, then, by extension, he must know the facts relating to that relationship, and it is incumbent on him to publish them or to admit that he has not actually undertaken an internal inquiry but just wishes the questions would go away.

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

The European Court of Human Rights has drawn attention to the fact that prisoners in this country do not have voting rights, and much consideration has been given to that. Far less consideration has been given to the fact that among the member states of the Council of Europe a large number of countries—Malta is a particularly bad example—hold prisoners for a very long time without charge or trial. Instead of just leaving this matter to the Backbench Business Committee, will my right hon. Friend consider that there ought to be at least one day of the year when this House gives the opportunity to those of us who represent the United Kingdom on the Council of Europe to indicate precisely what we are trying to do about this? A regular debate would be a very good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about matters relating to the Council of Europe. He will be aware that in terms of the management of business, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and the amount of time made available to it was expressly intended to ensure that some of the issues that are regularly the subject of general debates in this House could be considered by the Committee and scheduled for debate in line with the priorities of Back Benchers and not at the whim of Government. That is how the business should be conducted.

My hon. Friend will know about the reforms to the Council of Europe made in Brighton last year, which will, I hope, enable the European Court of Human Rights to focus much more strongly on issues of importance rather than a very large number of proceedings that have not been taken forward. I hope that he and others in the House appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State for Justice gave evidence to the Joint Committee that is considering the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill yesterday. That demonstrated how seriously we take our obligations in this respect.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on domestic violence? In my constituency there is a lack of a joined-up policy between the Government, the police and the local authority. We are seeing the closure of refuges, and everyone is blaming each other. We need a joined-up policy on this very serious issue. Will the Leader of the House commit to provide a debate in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate at the moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as will the House, that that was one of the areas focused on in some important debates relating to international women’s day last year. The Government, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and others have been working very closely together to tackle issues relating to domestic violence through the action plan on violence against women and girls. This is an important issue for us and we are taking action on it. We will continue to return to it on a regular basis.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on flexible working? The employment rate in the UK is one of the highest in the world and I think that is down to some of the steps that the Government have already taken to improve the right to request flexible working. Such a debate would also allow us to discuss the plans for shared parental leave, which I think will also increase the employment rate, particularly among women.

[Mr Lansley]

What my hon. Friend says is true and important. I think that we have now demonstrated that it is a myth to suggest that flexible working and the rights associated with it are somehow an impediment to successful business. In fact, they are often integral to successful business, because they enable businesses to acquire and retain the skills they are looking for, especially as far as women in the workplace are concerned. This country has a very high participation rate of women in work and record levels of women’s employment. I think that is absolutely part of what is enabling businesses in this country to respond successfully to, and to recover at the same time as, the economy.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on taxation policy? Many of us would like to debate the unfulfilled promise that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister made to publish their tax returns, so that we can see exactly how much they have gained from cuts in the top rate of tax and work out how much they might gain from the current proposals to impose VAT on food and children’s clothing in order to cut taxes for the rich.

[Mr Lansley]

On the last point, I do not think the hon. Lady listened yesterday when the Prime Minister said that we had no such proposal. On other tax matters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, of course, deliver his autumn statement at the Dispatch Box on 5 December.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Many couples in my constituency choose to have children at a younger age for religious and social reasons. Although I support their decision to do so, I would like assurances that there is appropriate support for those younger mothers. May we have a debate on what this Government have implemented to ensure that every mother has a health visitor before her baby is born and continues to receive support afterwards?

[Hon. Members]

Sure Start centres!

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Opposition Front Benchers mention Sure Start. One of the most important things for mothers and young families is to get that start right, but it is not just about the availability of a centre; it is about the availability of a health visitor for every family to give them the right start in life. Under the previous Government, health visiting ceased to be a universal entitlement for mothers and young families as they started out. That is why we committed ourselves—it is in the coalition agreement—to providing 4,200 more health visitors. From memory, I think there are about 1,000 more health visitors already. We are on track to deliver on that commitment. That increase of 50% in the number of health visitors will be integral to giving mothers and young families the support they need to get the right start in life.

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

John-Paul Conley of Middlesbrough has been missing since Tuesday 19 November, when he was caught in a current and carried away while swimming in the Don Khon 4,000 islands region in Laos. Since yesterday, more than £23,000 has been raised to aid the rescue effort. May we have a statement at the earliest opportunity from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the search and rescue attempt for John-Paul?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the House will be as concerned as the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about this. I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. Friend at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask him to respond to the hon. Gentleman and the House on what steps can be taken.

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

The Britannia Coco-nutters, led by their longest serving member, Dick Shufflebottom, have danced in Bacup in my constituency for the past 156 years. They survived the depression, two world wars and the winter of discontent, but it looks as though their boundary dance may not survive the health and safety inspectors from Rossendale borough council and Lancashire county council. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to come to the House and make a statement about how the Britannia Coco-nutters can be accommodated for generations to come?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested to learn about this from my hon. Friend as, I am sure, are my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government. If the matter relates to the Health and Safety Executive in particular, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, our hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who I know takes a common-sense view of things, will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how such provisions are properly applied in this case.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Later today we will debate the cost of this place and the savage cuts being imposed on it. At the same time the Government are creating more Lords at the other end of the building. The other place is a model of care for the elderly. May we have a debate on introducing a retirement age in the House of Lords so that this massive job creation scheme can at least be brought under some sort of control?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman was going with that. We will of course have an opportunity to debate the finances of this place. It is a bit rich for any Labour Member to talk about savage cuts. In order to reduce the deficit, we have as a matter of necessity to reduce the costs of administration, and we are doing so in this place in the same way as is being done in other public services. I am not sure whether those in the other place would take kindly to the way in which the hon. Gentleman expressed himself. They have done a lot of work on the Care Bill and we are looking forward to seeing that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) which, if passed, would allow Members in another place not simply to have leave of absence, which they do at present, but to retire.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware of the statement in the House yesterday from the Secretary of State for Defence that this House will be given an annual opportunity to consider our reserve forces. May we please have a statement on whether it is the Government’s intention that this annual debate should be in Government time or whether it will be diverted to the Backbench Business Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I recalled him making it clear that there would be an annual report to the House. I do not think he made a specific commitment as to how that report would be received by the House and debated, but I will discuss that collectively and through the usual channels, as usually happens.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to acknowledge that more than 500 children’s centres have closed on his watch. May we have a debate about the impact of the closure of children’s centres on the Government’s watch?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I heard the Prime Minister respond to that question and provide the accurate figure, which was that something approaching 1% of Sure Start children’s centres have closed—nothing like the figure the hon. Gentleman refers to. The Prime Minister also pointed out that financial support for early intervention is rising in this financial year from £2.3 billion to £2.5 billion.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the future of mutuals and co-operatives, so that those of us who have consistently supported the mutual concept have the opportunity to argue the case on behalf of well run, properly regulated and non-political mutuals and co-operatives, and to demonstrate the contribution that they have made to this country?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I completely understand the point that my hon. Friend rightly makes. The failings that have been evident in the way in which the Co-operative bank was run and the implications of that are a matter of the greatest disappointment to many of us. I personally share with my hon. Friend a sense that we do not want that to undermine the commitment to mutuals and co-operatives as a form of organisation for businesses. They have tremendous potential—as yet unrealised potential in many cases—for ensuring that businesses are very successful in the long term because they engage staff successfully and enable staff as well as customers of an organisation to feel that they have a stake in its long-term future.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In April 2010, there were 3,631 Sure Start centres in England, according to the Department for Education. The Government currently record 3,053, which is 578 fewer. May we have an urgent debate on children’s centres, given that discussions are still continuing on the Government Benches about whether or not more than 500 have closed since the Prime Minister took office? A debate might help Ministers to prompt his memory.

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat myself at length, but the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday and I have already said today that about 3,000 children’s centres are open and only 49 have closed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

There is concern in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire that the future funding of the clinical commissioning group might be based on historical primary care trust budgets, rather than on the formula developed by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, which focuses on such things as demography, age and rurality. Will the Leader of the House implore Health Ministers to base future health funding fairly and equitably on empirical data?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. Although I will obviously ensure that Ministers at the Department of Health see what he has said, that is no longer a matter for them. By virtue of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, that matter is no longer susceptible to the kind of political influences we saw in the past. It will be determined by NHS England and, as I understand it, we do not expect it to do so until its board meeting in December.

NHS England has conducted a fundamental review of allocations, and it has statutory responsibilities that are set out in the Act. Under the mandate—openly—the Government have made it clear that we expect

“the principle of ensuring equal access for equal need to be at the heart of the NHS England’s approach to allocating budgets.”

I think that that will be of help to my hon. Friend.

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

Following Hull’s wonderful success in becoming the city of culture for 2017, may we please have a debate about why arts funding is still skewed to London, not to the north of England and areas such as Hull?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall a recent discussion relating to the distribution of Arts Council England and arts funding, so if I may, I refer the hon. Lady to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they are next here to answer questions.

I do not want the moment to pass, however, without expressing the appreciation felt across the House at the exciting decision for Hull to be the city of culture in 2017. Many of us are aware of how exciting it has been for Derry/Londonderry, and I know from personal experience what a big difference it made to Liverpool. I am looking forward to exactly that kind of personal experience, which we can all have when we visit Hull in 2017, of seeing the tremendous show that it will put on as the city of culture.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, Hull also has a fine university, which I had the great pleasure to visit and address last year. I think that there is general consensus around the House on this matter.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House shares my affection for our local independent radio stations that provide an invaluable service in keeping us up to date on community issues, such as Minster FM in my constituency, but there is concern about the proposed switchover to DAB transmission. As such, may we have a debate on the digital upgrade plan and the impact it could have on local independent radio stations?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which he may want to raise when that matter comes up at Culture, Media and Sport questions. In the meantime, I will try to secure a response in relation to Minster FM and other stations from my hon. Friends at the Department, who I know are very interested in ensuring that the digital switchover does not impede that kind of local access to community broadcasting.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The local police and crime commissioner thinks that crime figures have been capped in Gwent, and the chief constable of Derbyshire said yesterday that he thought crime figures were being manipulated. May we have a debate in Government time on crime figures? Some police need to drive down crime, not numbers.

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman is in his place on 2 December, he may wish to raise that matter with my colleagues at the Home Office. From everything I know, I think we are very clear that crime statistics must be accurate and properly reflect crime in an area. As in so many areas, if we are to have confidence in the accountability of organisations, the statistics on which they are held to account—the Home Secretary has been very clear that she is focused on reducing crime—must be accurate and truthful. Fortunately, we have the recorded crime statistics and the national crime survey, and they show in parallel that there has been a substantial reduction in crime under this Government.

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

In my constituency, Labour-run Dudley metropolitan borough council is planning to close Tenterfields children’s centre, which will affect some of the most vulnerable communities in Halesowen and leave residents having to walk 3 miles to attend another centre. May we have a statement on the new statutory guidance that the Government have issued to local authorities on the provision of children’s centres in local areas?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because the plan to which he refers is being put forward by a Labour-run council. That is interesting, given what is being said by Labour Members. I am sure that that fact will not be lost on his constituents and others.

It is for local authorities to ensure that the provision they offer meets the needs of local communities. As I mentioned, the support that is being provided for early intervention this year is £2.5 billion, which is up from £2.3 billion last year. As my hon. Friend said, councils have a statutory duty to consult when they are planning changes to children’s centre provision so that parents and the public have an opportunity to influence the proposed changes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Ratner effect, which is the effect on a company when its chief executive describes its products in unparliamentary language? I am sure that the House would want to discuss not just whether but how and why the Government’s green policies have become mired in controversy.

[Mr Lansley]

You have the advantage over me, Mr Speaker, because I was not able to be here throughout questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when the hon. Gentleman graced his party’s Front Bench. If he wished to raise such a question, he might have had an opportunity to do so then.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the activities of Labour-run Bradford council? Not only are there questions about whether there was a cover-up regarding Paul Flowers, but my constituents in Menston have serious and legitimate complaints about the planning process, which led to a planning application being approved on a wholly inappropriate site. I have received a letter from a developer saying that Bradford council planning officers are supporting developers in pursuing another bid for housing on another inappropriate development site, which has been rejected by a planning committee, a planning inspector and the Secretary of State twice. Is it not time that my constituents had a council that worked in their interests, not against their interests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise issues on behalf of his constituents about which he has concerns. He will understand that I am not in a position to comment on the specific matters to which he refers. Fortunately, he has the opportunity to raise those matters in the House by seeking an Adjournment debate. That would allow him to set out in more detail for his constituents and for others the concerns that he has about Bradford council.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I am a proud Co-op member and I use my local Co-op in Honley and Holmfirth every week. May we have an urgent debate on why the Co-operative Group feels unable to give the annual members’ dividend this year, which would help hard-pressed families in the lead-up to Christmas, when it is able to find hundreds of thousands of pounds to donate to Labour party politicians?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that there are 7.6 million Co-op members across the country who will not get a dividend, whereas last year they received a dividend of £64 million. That is 7.6 million people who have a legitimate question to ask about why they will not get a dividend when, through the Co-op, loans continue to be made to the Labour party, including in the past few months and—[Interruption.] The Co-op party, yes. Loans are being made by the Co-op bank and the Unity Trust bank. Co-op members will all be asking why the below market rate loans and the donations are continuing, while their dividends are not.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House saw the front of The Sun today before skipping to the inside, but it clearly states that the Prime Minister is going to get rid of green c-r-a-p levies. That is great news and will keep energy prices down. We are doing something about keeping energy prices down; Labour wants to put them up. May we have a debate on that to make our position clear?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of provisional business for a debate in this House to consider Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, and that may afford him, and others, the opportunity to make such points. Through competition and better electricity market reform, the Government are setting out to ensure that the public have access to the lowest possible tariffs, and that we bring prices to the lowest point that is consistent through competition. At the same time, we must ensure that we fulfil our obligations on the reduction of carbon emissions and meet climate change objectives, but without—quite properly, I think, under the circumstances—loading those costs on to consumers. To meet those otherwise competing objectives, it is important that we help consumers to lower their energy bills and reduce energy consumption. As far as newspapers, and particularly that newspaper, are concerned, I tend to start at the back—I think I am not alone—as I enjoy the sports coverage rather more than I do the front.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

An independent civil service is a key cornerstone of the British constitutional system of government. My constituents—and, I suspect, a majority of the great British public—will be deeply troubled by suggestions that each Cabinet member will be allowed to appoint up to 10 political advisers to their office. Given that the number of special advisers is already too great, and their cost too high, may we have a statement from the Cabinet Office on those proposals, and a debate and vote in the House, so that they can be put to rest before they come into existence?

[Mr Lansley]

I realise it may be a little way off, but my hon. Friend may wish to raise that issue when my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General responds to questions in the House on 11 December. I do not agree that we have too many special advisers at the moment; we need special advisers for a number of reasons and they do an important job. The particular circumstances of coalition government inevitably give rise to an additional requirement, because it is important for both parties in the coalition to have access to independent and politically supportive advice. As part of the civil service reform plan we must understand that valuable and excellent as civil service support can be, civil servants do not have a monopoly on advice. Ministers should be able to draw on additional expert support and advice, and it is sometimes difficult for that to be achieved wholly by organisations outside Government. Sometimes the only way Ministers can get access to that further advice is by bringing experts into the Government, and that is part of the civil service reform plan.

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

Recent figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government have shown that Wolverhampton city council failed to collect more than £6 million of business and council tax last year. Given that nationally we are demonstrating a prudent attitude to public moneys, may we have a debate on how we could improve collection rates by local councils? Shockingly, if Wolverhampton city council mimicked neighbouring Sandwell, it could safeguard more than 700 jobs and protect services.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand and agree with my hon. Friend. I am fortunate in having in my constituency South Cambridgeshire district council, which last year won an award for the amount of council tax it collected. That is right and makes a big difference. People expect, as a matter of fairness, those who are liable for council tax to pay it, as that enables services to be provided to everybody. If a council is failing to achieve that, my hon. Friend, and others, should draw attention to it and press the council to match the record of the best. If he is in his place on Monday when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and other Ministers in that Department, are here, my hon. Friend might wish to reinforce that point with them.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I was pleased this week to co-host a reception in Parliament for Together for Short Lives. We heard a powerful speech from young Lucy Watts about the impact of her condition and the support she receives from her mother and her local children’s hospice. Together for Short Lives launched eight policies that it would like to see to support children and young people with life-limiting conditions. May we have a debate on those policies to examine them properly and to celebrate the tremendous and wonderful work of children’s hospices?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I hope there will be an opportunity for the House to consider this issue. We all appreciate the work of children’s hospices in our constituencies. I was pleased to attend the reception my hon. Friend sponsored and to meet people from East Anglian children’s hospices. I was very glad to meet Lucy and to hear directly from her. I hope that as a Government we will be able to respond to some of the things that children’s hospices have wanted for a long time. In particular, pilot sites are doing important work to prepare for a change in the funding system, so that children’s hospices can be assured of a per patient system of funding. While that is being prepared for 2015, we continue to provide more than £10 million annually to support children’s hospices. I personally think that the assurance of per patient funding will enable children’s hospices to plan with even greater confidence.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The terrible impact of Typhoon Haiyan on the Philippines will continue long after the tragedy no longer dominates headlines across the world. May we have regular statements over the coming year to update the House on progress in bringing relief to the people suffering in the Philippines?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope we can find time for statements—written statements and, if possible, a further statement to the House—on the support we are giving to the Philippines. The public have demonstrated, in a magnificent way, their compassion and support for the people of the Philippines through their donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee. The Secretary of State for International Development and the Government have shown that we are able to lead the world in the scale and quality of that support. The House heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that we are now able to do so much more to provide support. For example, the Big Lottery Fund can provide longer-term support to help to rebuild damaged communities. I hope the House will have a chance to hear about that shortly.

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

On 27 June, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that more than £4 billion would be spent on national road maintenance; enough to resurface 21,000 miles of road and 19 million potholes. In my constituency, I am campaigning with The Plymouth Herald’s Pothole Pete for some of that money to be spent on our potholes. Indeed, some are so deep that when it rains people start applying for fishing licences. May we please have a debate or a statement from the Treasury on the amount that Plymouth city council has received, and on the number of potholes that have been fixed nationally?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is commendably on the spot in understanding the issues in his constituency. I can give him the news, which I hope he will find welcome, that not only did the spending review announce £12 billion of funding for highways maintenance on strategic and local road networks from 2015-16 to 2020-21, but I am advised that from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the Department for Transport will have provided £9.6 million in capital funding to Plymouth city council for local highways maintenance. I hope that that funding will help to tackle the potholes to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how we can better promote to out-of-work UK citizens the tens of thousands of annual vacancies in fruit and vegetable production, which tend to be more widely advertised overseas than in our country?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the moment, we are blessed not only with record levels of employment—1.4 million more private sector jobs—but with record levels of vacancies, so if people are out of work, they should be looking for work; those opportunities are available to them. With the ending of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, it is particularly important for fruit and vegetable growers to have increased access to the work force they need, when they need it.

Points of Order

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House can come in in a moment, with pleasure. I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving me advance notice of her intention to raise the point of order. The original date of the autumn statement was announced to the House during an earlier business question. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful for the long notice given. However, if something has been announced to the House about its future business, I would consider it courteous for the House to be informed formally of any change before the wider world was informed. A written statement would usually suffice if there were not sufficient occasion or urgency to justify a supplementary business statement. That is my very clear sense of the matter. I am obliged to the Leader of the House for his presence. If he wishes to rise to his feet, we are keen to hear him.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for raising the point of order, as it gives me an early opportunity to confirm to the House that the autumn statement that was previously announced during business questions as taking place on Wednesday 4 December will now take place on Thursday 5 December.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that. He will, I hope, have heard the statement from the Chair. To put it very candidly and bluntly, these announcements should be made to the House, not by the mechanism of Twitter. I think it is pretty clear.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 11 November—Second Reading of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the regulation of new psychoactive substances.

Tuesday 12 November—Opposition day [11th allotted day]. There will be a full day’s debate entitled “Abolition of the Bedroom Tax”. The debate will arise on an Opposition motion.

I would like to remind colleagues that this year Parliament week will run from 15 to 21 November. The week will launch with the annual sitting in this Chamber of the UK Youth Parliament on Friday 15 November.

The business for the week commencing 18 November will be:

Monday 18 November—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a carry-over extension on the Energy Bill, followed by a general debate on police procedures in dealing with mental health issues. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 19 November—Opposition day [12th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 20 November—Remaining stages of the Defence Reform Bill.

Thursday 21 November—A debate on a motion relating to the finances of the House of Commons, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the implementation of new legislation on stalking. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 22 November—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 21 November, 5 and 12 December will be:

Thursday 21 November—Debate on the first report of the Committees on Arms Export Controls on the scrutiny of arms exports and arms control.

Thursday 5 December—Debate on the second report of the Education Select Committee on the role of school governing bodies, followed by a debate on the third report of the Education Select Committee on school sport following London 2012.

Thursday 12 December—Debate on the first report of the International Development Select Committee on global food security, followed by a debate on the second report of the International Development Select Committee on violence against women and girls.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I am looking forward to attending the sitting of the Youth Parliament next week. May I take this opportunity to remember the sacrifice of our armed forces as we approach Remembrance Sunday? We all wear our poppies with pride.

This morning, the Public Accounts Committee has published a devastating report on the Government’s flagship benefit reform, citing a shocking failure to manage it and predicting that the Department for Work and Pensions will have to write off a substantial part of the £425 million it has already spent. It seems that the blame game for this costly fiasco has already started. This morning we learn of a wholly improper attempt to lean on members of an independent Select Committee of this House by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his parliamentary team to try to put the blame on the permanent secretary. Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about these very serious allegations?

While the majority face a cost of living crisis, it has been reported in the Daily Mirror today that the Prime Minister has cut his own household bills by nearly £400 a year while refusing to support our motion yesterday for an energy price freeze for everyone else. That tells us everything about who he is standing up for. Will the Leader of the House now confirm how much less the Prime Minister is paying on his home as a result of the top-rate tax cut?

In evidence to the Health Select Committee, the chief executive of NHS England said that the NHS was becoming

“bogged down in a morass of competition law”,

following the Government’s botched, £3 billion top-down reorganisation. Given that the Leader of the House had his fingerprints all over that one, does he agree with that analysis?

The Leader of the House must also have felt a sense of déjà vu as he was forced into a humiliating climb-down on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in the Lords this week. Perhaps he is trying to patent a new way of doing Bills. First Reading—outcry; Second Reading—lose the argument but stubbornly refuse to listen; go to the Lords—hit the emergency pause button and say that he will do all the things he should have done before he published the Bill in the first place. This is just like what happened on the Health and Social Care Bill. Everyone who will be affected by the lobbying Bill opposes it. Just like on the health Bill, he cannot make the case for his proposals because there is no case for them; and just like on the health Bill, he is disguising his true intentions because he knows he has no public support. Will the Leader of the House tell us how he intends to use the next six weeks to “listen, pause and reflect” on the lobbying Bill, and will he commit now to making the substantial changes that this sinister gagging Bill needs? Better still, why does he not just scrap it and start again?

We all know that the Prime Minister does not seem to like answering questions from the Opposition very much during his Wednesday outings. Yesterday, he told three of my hon. Friends that he did not have the answers to hand. He did not know the total number of people in the country on zero-hours contacts; he did not know how many of his so-called new private sector jobs involved zero-hours contracts; and he decided that the appropriate way to respond to a question about the rights of pregnant women not to be sacked was to have a cheap shot at trade union general secretaries. Is it not time we renamed Prime Minister’s questions “I’m sorry I haven’t a clue”?

This week, the Government were forced by the courts to keep the independent living fund up and running, and they lost yet another vote in the other place on the Energy Bill, despite stuffing the Chamber with their friends. They have also now lost two terror suspects: one escaped in a black cab, the other dressed as a woman. And on Monday, the Communities Secretary welcomed a report that called for sheep and cows to replace council lawnmowers. I know that I call this Government Orwellian, but I was not suggesting a production of “Animal Farm”.

Last week, we discovered that there had been a 50% rise in the number of special advisers, despite the coalition agreement promising to cut them. We also discovered that the Deputy Prime Minister had 19 special advisers, costing over £1 million a year. This week, despite the uproar, the Deputy Prime Minister decided that the best thing to do was to hire another one, to do his PR. We have had the famous five, and we have had the magnificent seven. Even the Messiah only had 12! What on earth does the Deputy Prime Minister need 20 for? Does the Leader of the House agree that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the Messiah—he’s a very naughty boy?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, and I join her in remembering the fallen, as will Members right across the House, both here and in our constituencies on Sunday. Many families will remember not only those who fell but those who have served this country, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

The shadow Leader of the House made a point about universal credit. The Public Accounts Committee report deals with historical matters, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions have already taken steps to secure the safe and sound delivery of the programme on time and on budget. She also referred to certain reports, which I have seen. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I can tell the House that there is no need for a statement. I can tell her and the House that there is no truth—[Interruption.] I can tell the House now that there is no truth in the allegations about talking to members of the Public Accounts Committee. I talked to the Secretary of State and I can tell the House that.

I spoke to my good friend, the chief executive of NHS England, on the Committee corridor. As for

“a morass of competition law”,

I do not think that is true. We do not share the same view. As it happens, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 did not change the structure of competition law as it applies to the NHS, except in so far as it introduced a concurrent jurisdiction for Monitor, a health-related body, to exercise, as opposed to competition authorities doing so directly. The Health and Social Care Act has enabled us to deliver £5.5 billion-worth of savings in administration costs in this Parliament and to support the NHS in delivering, for example, 23,000 fewer administrators and 4,000 more clinicians.

On the transparency Bill, no pause is taking place—[Interruption.] I am telling Opposition Members what is happening. The order of consideration in the House of Lords is quite understandable, given that peers wanted the opportunity to consider in detail issues relating to part 2—part 1 and part 3 will be considered first, and part 2 will be considered later in December. That is perfectly sensible. We will engage fully. My noble Friend signalled an amendment in the House of Lords that relates to the structure of the registration thresholds. We will look at what is being proposed—if changes are proposed to part 2, we will look at them—but in the context of delivering through the transparency Bill, what we should all agree on, and this House agreed in principle, is that when third parties seek to influence the political system, whether it be through lobbying or through campaigning at election time, or when the trade unions are seeking to exert influence, it should be subject to proper transparency and accountability. Nobody is being gagged, but the transparency must be there. We must see how third parties influence the political system.

I did not draw up a complete list of all the points that the shadow Leader of the House raised—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House is quite right—I am not sure whether I should respond to jokes rather than to questions. In that context, the only other question was about zero-hours contracts—

[Ms Eagle]

What about the special advisers?

[Mr Lansley]

Oh, yes—the special advisers. I think it is the same answer as last week. The coalition gives rise to particular requirements, and it is perfectly understandable that when two parties are in coalition there is a need for sources of independent advice for the Deputy Prime Minister. That is understandable and it will continue to be the case.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will have noticed the magnificent display in Parliament square of the flags of the British overseas territories and, indeed, of the Crown dependencies. Will he invite the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on an unusually helpful comment in and answer by the EU Commissioner, Michel Barnier, about the tax and financial status of Gibraltar, in which he confirmed that there were

“no ‘well founded’ complaints alleging Gibraltar’s failure to cooperate on tax, financial and money-laundering matters”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that completely debunks the propaganda put out by the Government of Spain?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have indeed seen those flags displayed; it is good to see them. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the character of the complaints made about Gibraltar by the Spanish Government, and the Commissioner rightly made an important point about that. Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made a written statement about Gibraltar in general. In the context of working with overseas territories, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a written ministerial statement—a welcome one—about our taxation arrangements with the Cayman Islands. That is demonstration of how we are working more positively than ever before with the British overseas territories to secure an exchange of information in respect of, and action on, tax evasion and avoidance.

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

Later today the Intelligence and Security Committee will hold its first public session, at which the heads of the various security agencies will speak. I welcome that, because, along with others, I have advocated such a meeting for some considerable time, but no notice of it is given on today’s Order Paper. I do not blame the Clerks, because I am sure that there are parliamentary reasons for the fact that the meeting is not listed, but will it be possible for notices to be posted around the building informing people that it will take place at—I understand—2 pm, and can the Leader of the House confirm that, although it has been suggested that tickets should be obtained beforehand, there will be no restriction on Members’ attendance?

[Mr Lansley]

The Order Paper does not convey the information because the Intelligence and Security Committee, although under statute a Select Committee of Parliament as designated in the Act that we passed during the last Session, is not analogous with other Select Committees of the House. There are ways in which it differs from them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is not a Select Committee!

[Mr Lansley]

The statute says that it is a Select Committee of Parliament, but it is not analogous with parliamentary Select Committees. I understand that, Mr Speaker, and you understand it, but the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not understand it.

I must confess that I am not aware of the arrangements relating to the attendance of Members of Parliament at meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee. They are a matter for the House authorities, and no doubt you, Mr Speaker, will advise the House further if necessary.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Has my right hon. Friend noted the reports of the Justice, Home Affairs and European Scrutiny Committees on the European justice and home affairs opt-ins? Is he aware that all three reports call for a debate to be held so that the Government’s hand can be strengthened in negotiations by the House having expressed its views?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend personally on his 40 years in the House.

I have indeed seen those reports, and, as my right hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear our intention to enable the House to consider what the Government have proposed in relation to the opt-out and the measures in respect of which we think that it may be appropriate to opt back in, and to express its view.

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

The allegation in The Times that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been smearing a civil servant is a serious one. May we have a statement tomorrow—or a resignation?

[Mr Lansley]

I have just told the House that the allegations are not true.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

May we have a debate about morality in the tax system, with particular reference to section 58 of the Finance Act 2008? Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is trying to collect tax retrospectively from some 2,200 people, including constituents of mine. Some of them will have to sell their homes. We really need to debate this issue and reconsider it.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask Ministers in the Treasury to respond directly to my hon. Friend, although he will know that the subject was discussed during consideration of the Finance Act. We are careful to ensure that the instances in which legislation has a retrospective effect are minimised, and that when it does occur, it is subject to specific advice from the Law Officers about its appropriateness.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

It is truly shocking if there is any truth in the allegation in today’s edition of The Times that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or others associated with him or working for him, tried to influence the report of an independent Committee of the House. It is also of concern that, when one of the Committee members was asked to deny that he had been approached, he refused to comment. It really would be right and proper for the Secretary of State to come here and explain himself, so that we can ask him questions on behalf of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

Opposition Members seem to have arrived in the Chamber expecting to be able to make points without listening to the answers that I have given previously. I have had a conversation with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and there is no truth in the allegations.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on local government finance? That would enable Members to reflect on the fact that, given that both sides of the House now accept the public spending limits until 2016-17, even if there is a change of Government at the next general election, there will be no more money for local government and, difficult though it may be, all local authorities are going to have to live within the funds allocated to them?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. When we came into government there was no money, as a message from the then departing Chief Secretary stated. We are trying to escape from the mess we inherited from the Labour party. In part, that depends on every bit of the public sector doing its bit. Local government has undeniably had to contribute substantially to the reduction in the deficit. It continues to do so, and does so very well as local authorities are achieving more for less and are delivering public satisfaction with many local government services, notwithstanding the substantial reductions. The Government are giving support to enable councils to address some areas of greatest need, such as supporting them in freezing their council tax. That is relieving the pressure on hard-working families. We are also supporting local government directly through the work that the NHS is going to do on joint funding for social care; £3.8 billion in additional support was announced in the latest spending round. Full details on the local government finance settlement will be published in due course, but we have made encouraging progress.

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

May we have a debate on the imminent reintroduction of the skip tax by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will lead to a 2,700% increase in the cost of emptying a skip? It will lead to an increase to customers of £175 for hiring a skip, and it will force 1,500 small businesses into bankruptcy, including Mr and Mrs Tapping of Reliable Skips in my constituency. If construction and small businesses are to be the drivers of growth, how can the skip tax be right?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will not comment in detail on that, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury to respond to the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

As a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, may I begin by making it clear to Opposition Members that no pressure was exerted on any Members in respect of universal credit?

May we have a debate on technical and vocational education in Peterborough? The number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—is falling, the number of apprenticeships is rising and youth unemployment is dropping, but we need to drive up skills. Serendipitously, this week a very strong bid for a university technical college in Peterborough comes before Ministers. Will the Leader of the House nudge them in the right direction?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, including for his confirmation of the point I have repeatedly made now at these questions to Labour Members, who do not appear to be able to understand when they are being told a simple fact.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s reference to a UTC. We have a UTC being developed in relation to skills to support the life sciences industry in Cambridge. The possibility of a UTC in Peterborough is an interesting and important opportunity. The UTCs will help us ensure that young people have the training to support economic growth in the future. In terms of the applications, I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to announce the successful projects in January.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On Tuesday, regulations will take effect that allow the outsourcing of provision for children in care to private companies, despite a striking lack of evidence that it is good for children. The regulations also allow for a clear conflict of interest to arise, because the same private company will be allowed to place a child into care and run that placement. This is, frankly, a disaster waiting to happen. Does the Leader of the House agree that the fact that there has been virtually no scrutiny of this measure—the Government tried to push it through under a legislative reform order before they were stopped—is an extraordinary breach of our responsibility as corporate parents to these children? Given that he is so fond of pausing legislation, will he pause these regulations so we can have an urgent debate in this House about this very important matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that I heard a request for a debate as such, but I will ask the relevant Minister at the Department for Education to respond to those issues. As the hon. Lady says, the state’s responsibility as a corporate parent to children has often not been discharged as well as it ought to have been. Clearly it is important that we improve the quality of the placements that we achieve for looked-after children. The Children and Families Bill made good progress through this House, when it was the subject of extensive scrutiny, and it continues to be the subject of scrutiny in the other place, with more than six days in Committee, so that gives real opportunities for the matter to be considered.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Next week marks national export week. Many businesses in Erewash are successfully exporting their products and services around the globe, so may I ask my right hon. Friend to make time available in the House over the next few weeks in which we can support this important area of UK business?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I think that everyone in the House will recognise that we have made good progress on support. Indeed, when I was talking to a company in my constituency just last week, it described the excellent support it has received in China from UK Trade & Investment. We have had great success in increasing our exports to China, India and Brazil—some of the emerging economies —but we all recognise that we need to do more. We have some great businesses, but if we were to secure an increase in the proportion of businesses, especially small businesses, that export to some of our competitors, such as Germany, it would do an enormous amount to boost our long-term recovery.

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

I do not know whether the Leader of the House was able to listen to today’s “Thought for the Day” by Rev. Lucy Winkett, who spoke movingly about this week’s events in the campaign for a living wage. The fact is that a living wage is very important, especially to people living in my constituency and in London. Those working in this House need a decent level of wage in order to have a reasonable life. May we have an early debate on the work of the House of Commons Commission so that we can sort out that this place should be a beacon for good employment?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the view expressed by the Prime Minister at this Dispatch Box, and by the Mayor of London and others, about the desirability of supporting a living wage. So far as I am aware—I did discuss this with the Clerk of the House—the staff employed in this House are all in receipt of at least the London living wage.

[Mr Sheerman]

No, they are not.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House was shocked by the death of the young girl who was attacked by her dog earlier this week—our thoughts must be with her family. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent review of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, because if its provisions on dangerous dogs go through, the mother of that young girl would face up to 14 years in prison, which would be a ridiculous unintended consequence of the legislation? Will he ensure that the Bill at least involves provision on intent, or that it is changed in other ways, to ensure that the mother of that young girl, who is going through enough trauma at the moment, does not face a ridiculously long prison sentence?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the great distress and shock that people have felt as a result of those events. Many people have called for the provisions in the Bill relating to harm caused by dangerous dogs on private premises for a long time. They have been debated in this House, but the Bill continues to be considered, so I know that Members of both Houses will consider the points he makes and the application of the Bill in any individual circumstances.

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

Serious accusations were made in this morning’s edition of The Times that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions tried not only to nobble a Select Committee, but to smear a civil servant. The Leader of the House has just told the House that he has spoken to the Secretary of State, so will he tell us what the Secretary of State said in response to the accusations? Would not the best way of clearing things up be for the Secretary of State to come to the House and make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I have told the House that there is no truth in those allegations, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who entirely endorsed the point that I made.

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

Although I welcome the Government’s plans to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, Babcock, which is responsible for refitting and refurbishing our nuclear submarines at Devonport dockyard in my constituency, faces a challenge in retaining skilled nuclear engineers. May we have a statement, or perhaps a debate, on how we might avoid such skill shortages?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry some 10 years ago, we were concerned about the loss of skills and expertise in this country because of the failure to proceed with any new nuclear build. I am afraid that remedying the situation has taken until now, following the coalition Government’s steps. My hon. Friend rightly makes a wider point about the availability of skills. The sector skills organisations and, in some locations, the local enterprise partnerships will be able to work with industry to focus on enabling Government support to go directly to meet those needs.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Even those who are not particular fans of football might have seen the horrific pictures last Sunday of the Spurs goalkeeper, Hugo Lloris, being concussed on the pitch, but being forced to go back on and play. May we have an urgent debate as soon as possible on the dangers of concussion in sport so that we can provide a lead? A conference in Twickenham this afternoon is considering the subject in the context of rugby and The Mail on Sunday is running a big campaign. There is clear evidence that when people are forced to play again after being concussed, they can all too easily end up suffering from premature dementia.

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I did not see that, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point very clearly. I am not sure whether I can promise Government time for a debate, but if he is in conversation with colleagues across the House who, quite rightly, share his concern, they could seek an Adjournment debate or Back-Bench time, perhaps in Westminster Hall, to allow those important issues to be raised.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My late and courageous constituent, Private John Brackpool of the Welsh Guards, was killed while on active duty in Afghanistan in July 2009. I understand that the Australian military offers visits to the place where loved ones fell in Afghanistan, and I would be grateful for a statement from the Defence Secretary on whether the Ministry of Defence could offer a similar scheme for British families.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Ministry of Defence is committed to giving the families of service personnel all the support it can, especially when they tragically lose a loved one on operations. The most recent loss of a soldier from 3rd Battalion The Mercian Regiment provides us with a painful reminder of the sacrifices our armed services personnel make. The Ministry of Defence is sensitive to requests from families who wish to visit the place where their sons and daughters have died while on operation in Afghanistan. However, its overriding responsibility is one of safety, both for those visiting and for our service personnel. Afghanistan, as the House will know, remains a dangerous environment, and the Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to ensure that those who are escorted are not exposed to unnecessary risk, and that doing that does not expose service personnel to additional risk.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The House’s Select Committee system has proven itself time and again to be a cornerstone of our democracy. Given today’s serious allegations in The Times that some of its impartiality and independence might have been compromised, why will the Leader of the House not allow the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House and tell Members and the public what he has told the Leader of the House, and to reassure us that that independence will be defended at all costs?

[Mr Lansley]

I have informed the House of the situation, so the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is not justified. I have no reason to believe that the independence of the Public Accounts Committee has been compromised in any way.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I was unable to be in the Chamber for Transport questions this morning but, if I had been, I would have asked for a debate about extending the cycle routes that the Secretary of State has announced through the national parks and joining them up so that more people can use them, especially if the routes go through a world heritage site. That would bring tourism into my constituency and enable cyclists to commute into Derby on safe routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that I suspect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be familiar with and sympathetic to, given his constituency interest. I will draw the further point relating to transport to his attention, and he might like to respond to my hon. Friend.

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

May we have a statement about what is happening with the Chilcot inquiry? It seems like an age since it was established and took its evidence, and we learn today that there has been a further blockage in obtaining correspondence between Tony Blair and George Bush from the Cabinet Secretary. Surely the Chilcot inquiry should get everything that it requires so that we can get to the bottom of why we went into that disastrous illegal war?

[Mr Lansley]

I regret that I am not in a position to comment about that. I have read about this in the newspapers, but that is literally all I know about whether information is being sought by the Chilcot inquiry. I will talk to my colleagues and see whether we can update the House on the timetable although, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not in the hands of the Government as such.

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

May we have a debate on geography? As I sat through Transport questions, I heard about wonderful investments in the north, the midlands and across the country, but I did not hear one word about anything west of Swindon or south of Bristol. There is a real fear that the Department for Transport does not know where the west country is. If the Secretary of State wants to assure me that he does, he can announce improvements on the A303, the electrification of the Great Western line and the re-opening of Langport and Somerton stations, and then I will be satisfied.

[Mr Lansley]

I did hear the Secretary of State respond to a question about Bristol, but not beyond Bristol. I am entirely familiar with the geography of the south-west, having lived in Exeter for four years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the rail investment programme, which is not just HS2—as he said, HS2 represents just a quarter of the investment during the next Parliament. Many projects in the programme were never proceeded with under the previous Government, but will have a positive impact on many parts of the country. If there is anything in particular that my colleagues can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) about this matter, I will ask them to do so.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It has always struck me that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is an honourable man so, notwithstanding the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I would have thought that he would want to come to the House and deal with these matters directly.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is indeed an honourable man and a man of integrity. I am happy to confirm to the House that the allegations are not true and there is no reason for him to come to make a statement. We make statements to the House to update it on something that has happened, not something that has not happened.

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

On 25 October I received a parliamentary answer informing me that, out of 2,533 railway stations, only 452 had disabled access to all platforms. That is clearly inadequate in the 21st century, so would it be possible for a Minister to make a statement on when that inadequacy will be rectified, placing particular emphasis on rural areas?

[Mr Lansley]

There are stations in my constituency where it is difficult for people with disabilities to access all platforms to change trains, so my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to write to him as he has just missed the opportunity to raise that point during Question Time.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I can remember at least two occasions since I have been in the House when improper conduct—within and externally—in relation to Select Committees has been the subject of inquiries called for by the Leader of the House’s party. Why is he being inconsistent now? Can he not simply accept that it undermines the credibility of Select Committees for him to act as a shield for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but Opposition Members are persisting with a complete misapprehension. There is no basis for their questions; there is no need for any further statement. I have made it clear that the independence and credibility of the Public Accounts Committee is not compromised.

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

Given that, during the course of the Electoral Commission’s research into the excellent private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), which provides for holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the commission discovered that some people apparently do not even know that we are members of the EU, may we please have a debate on the effectiveness of our education system?

[Mr Lansley]

There are two things that I would say to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. First, the national curriculum review has revised programmes of study to ensure that teaching is directed towards a core knowledge of citizenship, including how our society is governed. That, we hope, will help young people in the future. Secondly, and perhaps more immediately and practically, the passage of legislation that ensures that the people of this country have a referendum on our membership of the European Union will educate everybody about the character of our membership of the European Union—and, I might say, about its benefits.

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

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the Work and Pensions Secretary’s departure as leader of the Tory party. To commemorate that, may we have an urgent statement by him about the allegations repeated in The Times of pressure being applied to a parliamentary Committee of this House, and about whether this again is a resigning matter for the Secretary of State?

[Mr Lansley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago—and the one before that, the one before that, and the one before that.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Has the Leader of the House seen today’s report from WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—showing that although domestic food waste has been cut by 21% since 2007, the average household still throws away the equivalent of six meals every week? May we have a debate to consider how such waste might be further reduced, and to look in particular at how the effective use of packaging could affect that?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue, and the report from WRAP is extremely helpful. Clearly progress has been made, but a lot more progress is possible. I am glad that Tesco, for example, recently illustrated rather powerfully the extent of food waste. The more we can reduce food waste, the more we can improve our situation in so many respects, including by reducing the amount of unnecessary packaging, by making sure that we can balance more effectively the growing and supply of food with demand for food and, hopefully, by also reducing the cost of food.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party kidney group, I recently heard distressing evidence from kidney dialysis patients of their difficulties in living a full family life because of their inability both to find and to fund DAFB—dialysis away from base? May we have a debate on a statutory requirement to make available vacancies in dialysis units so that dialysis patients can go on holiday, attend weddings or visit their grandchildren, with the funding going with them to finance their treatment?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady might wish to seek an Adjournment debate or, perhaps with colleagues, time from the Backbench Business Committee to discuss that important issue. I imagine that kidney patients would find that very valuable. I recall that, when I was Secretary of State for Health, I was aware of the relative lack of access to dialysis here compared with in other countries. The previous Government made some progress on that and we have added to that progress since. I recall visiting dialysis units, such as in Brighton, that expressly set out to provide sufficient capacity for those working away from home and those on holiday.

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

Last year Warwick’s High street and Jury street were closed for 17 weeks for roadworks, causing significant disruption for local businesses and residents alike. Warwickshire county council now proposes closing the roads again in January, partly as a consequence of the failure of the previous roadworks. May we have a debate on how we can build better communications between local authorities and businesses so that local infrastructure projects are undertaken in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the local economy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend does good work to raise his constituents’ concerns. Obviously that is not a matter for the Government directly, but I understand that the works proposed for January are to install a pedestrian crossing on Warwick’s High street, although no decision will be made by the council until 22 November, when the portfolio holder concerned is expected to make a final decision on whether the works will proceed. That is a matter for the local highways authority, Warwickshire county council. I know that my hon. Friend will have raised it with the council and will continue to do so, but raising it here today might help its considerations.

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

The Government have been celebrating a huge increase in sanctions against jobseeker’s allowance claimants. In order to have a fuller picture and to be confident that there are indeed grounds for celebration, may we have a debate on the reasons for those sanctions, the number of appeals pending and the outcomes of the appeals heard so far?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might wish to raise those issues during Work and Pensions questions on Monday 18 November. I do not think that it is a matter of celebrating sanctions. I think it is important for us all that we focus the state’s resources on supporting those in need, whether that arises from disability or relative vulnerability, and those genuinely seeking work. It is therefore important that those who should be seeking work are genuinely doing so.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May we have a debate on how a co-director of a company can possibly meet the requirements for an application for financial support and assistance, including legal aid, when the company’s accounts are being withheld by her spouse, from whom she is separated?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I will not delve into it too far, because it seems quite an interesting and difficult point. It is a statutory requirement that a company’s accounts are made available through Companies House. If I may, I will refer her question to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice, because it relates to legal aid, to see whether they can provide her with a further helpful answer.

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

May we have a debate on the international festival for business, which Liverpool is hosting next year on behalf of the whole UK? A debate would enable us to hear about the excellent work taking place in Liverpool, carried out by Liverpool Vision on behalf of Liverpool city council, and consider how the whole UK could benefit from the business opportunities on offer.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I think that the House would welcome such an opportunity, which interested Members might seek through the Backbench Business Committee. I completely agree that it would be good to have an opportunity to celebrate that, not least the new business formation and the regeneration and renaissance of businesses in and around the north-west, and in Liverpool in particular. I know from my visits to the city that it has shown admirable progress in regeneration and in new business creation, and I hope that that can be showcased for the whole country from Liverpool to the rest of the world.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Last night, Mr Speaker, you kindly hosted an event to highlight the campaign for women’s rights in Afghanistan. I was pleased to meet students there from Benton Park school in my constituency who have done considerable work in that area. Given the withdrawal of troops next year, may we have a debate on that important issue so that we can lend our support as this becomes even more urgent as the 2014 date draws nearer?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in welcoming the Amnesty International event to which he refers. As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in Afghanistan yesterday, when she raised with Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmadi and others the need to uphold the historic gains in women’s rights since 2001. We work in partnership with the Afghan Government and others to further progress the rights of all Afghan citizens, including the equal rights of women and girls. As for a debate, it would clearly be helpful at some point, but it might be premature in advance of the presidential and provincial elections in Afghanistan scheduled for April next year.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal found against the Department for Work and Pensions on the very important issue of the independent living fund. Today, serious allegations have been made about the Department’s conduct. Is it not correct and proper that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should come to this House to be held publicly accountable to all Members on these issues and not have private conversations with the Leader of the House that are supposed to satisfy my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, the purpose of the conversation was so that I could give the House the assurance that I clearly have given to it. On his first point, we were pleased that the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which we undertook our consultation on the future of the independent living fund and accepted that it had been carried out properly and fairly. By contrast, we are disappointed with some aspects of the decision. We will examine the judgment very carefully, consider its implications, and, in due course, take and announce decisions on how we intend to proceed.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

We are approaching the first anniversary of the elections of police and crime commissioners. In the Humberside police area, we are fortunate to have Matthew Grove as our commissioner. He is doing an excellent job in contact with local communities in improving policing in their areas. May we have a debate in Government time to mark this important anniversary of an excellent coalition policy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the pleasure of meeting Matthew Grove during the past year and hearing from him about the excellent and innovative, almost exciting, ways in which he is—

[Chris Bryant]

Almost exciting?

[Mr Lansley]

I never get excited. However, they were certainly innovative and effective. He and others are demonstrating that police reforms are working and crime is falling. The police and crime commissioners have been a mechanism by which the public can see that their priorities are being reflected directly into the priorities of policing in their area. That is welcome not only for democratic purposes but from the operational point of view.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Yesterday at the all-party group on youth affairs, the Youth Select Committee launched its report, “A Curriculum for Life”, which is the result of its inquiry into the role of the education system in supporting young people to develop life skills. Please may we have a debate on that excellent report?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the hon. Lady makes an important point. I hope that if she is in her place on Monday at Education questions she might have a further opportunity to highlight it to Education Ministers. I recollect that at last year’s meeting of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in this Chamber, its members resolved to pursue the issue of a curriculum for life, so they are on exactly the page to which she refers. When the Youth Parliament is here next week, it will have an opportunity to reinforce the point, which I hope that we as a House will then have further opportunities to take up.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on motorway congestion in West Yorkshire? For two years, my constituents have suffered from the implementation of the managed motorways scheme between Huddersfield and Leeds. Now the central barrier is being replaced, causing yet more congestion, and they cannot even use the M1 north from Wakefield to Leeds because it is now having its own managed motorway scheme implemented as well. This is a really important issue for my constituents every morning.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised these important issues about the M62 earlier. There is inevitably some disruption during these works. He will know that the further work relating to barriers on the M62 was not able to be funded at the time when the managed motorways scheme was being introduced. That is a pity, but the work is now due to be completed in December. I can assure him that the Highways Agency will keep three lanes open to traffic during the day, limiting necessary lane closures to overnight where possible. I hope that the smart motorway works that have been undertaken will bring extra capacity and more reliable journeys for his commuters in future.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House has sought to assure the House that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not seek to influence an independent Select Committee. Given the interest in and seriousness of the allegations, I am sure that is something the Secretary of State will want to explain to the House himself. Can this be arranged and can we then have a debate on who at the Department for Work and Pensions should take the blame for the shambles of universal credit, which is affecting the lives of so many constituents, including mine, across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I sought to assure the House—I think that I have assured the House. I have made that clear. I reiterate my earlier point that the Public Accounts Committee report makes important points about the historic problems, and that is precisely why the Secretary of State and my colleagues have sought to ensure the safe and sound delivery of the programme by proceeding at a different pace for the roll-out. They and we remain committed to the achievement of universal credit on time and on budget, because the resources we provide should be directed towards supporting those who are most in need, and in the context of ensuring that it always pays to be in work.

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

May we have a debate on the Government’s policy on light rail? The excellent “Green light for light rail” report overturned the anti-tram policy of the previous Government but, unfortunately, Leeds is still being told that we cannot have a tram station and that we have to have a bus-based scheme, which was a decision made by the previous Government. May we have a debate on why Leeds cannot have a modern light rail scheme?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to respond to the particular points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he and his colleagues in Leeds may wish to secure an Adjournment debate on the issue. My constituency has a guided busway scheme that uses an old rail route. It has become very successful and is now exceeding its anticipated passenger numbers. Although there were considerable difficulties involved in establishing it, it is possible to have an effective public transport route, through a guided busway system, on an old rail corridor.

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

On average, for every £100 a man earns, a woman earns only £85. Today is equal pay day, the day when women in effect stop being paid due to the 14.9% gender pay gap. It is 43 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970, 100 years since the suffragette movement and 125 years since the match women’s strike, so may we please have a debate on ensuring that all women get equal pay for work of equal value?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope and believe that there are common values on this issue throughout the House. It is something we have legislated on and we seek to pursue it in the public sector. The evidence today suggests that we have made more progress than appears generally to be the case in the private sector. The hon. Lady will recall that equal pay day in the private sector was 27 August. We have to make progress on the issue. If an opportunity arises for a debate, not least through the Backbench Business Committee, I for one would welcome it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a full day’s debate in Government time on Britain’s rapidly increasing population? Official statistics suggest that Britain’s population will increase from 63.7 million today to 73.3 million in 2037 and that we will have to absorb another city the size of Greater London, which will put huge pressures on our public services, social cohesion, jobs and wages.

[Mr Lansley]

Those are interesting figures from the Office for National Statistics, although they are in the nature of a forecast, some aspects of which we can influence and some we cannot. For example, over roughly the past decade, this country’s birth rate has gone up by, I think, about 16%. There is a limit to what we can do. The increase in population is also a result of increased longevity. The combination of those two things will inevitably mean an increase in our population and we have to respond to that.

We must therefore ensure that we manage migration into this country better than has been done in the past. That is why we set ourselves the objective of bringing net migration down from a quarter of a million a year to the tens of thousands. We have made considerable progress and have reduced net migration by a third. We need to continue with that because of the simple fact that an increase in the total population creates pressure on resources.

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

May we have a statement on the plans for a trans-Pennine transport feasibility study, which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced in June? That will directly affect the Longdendale area of my constituency, which is heavily congested. I first wrote to the Department for Transport at the end of June to follow up on that welcome announcement and have contacted the Department three times to seek a response. I appreciate that there have been ministerial changes, but I am eager for news. If the Department needs any assistance in formulating its response, I reiterate that I am happy to work with it, as is my Conservative neighbour, the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), to deliver the feasibility study. Will the Leader of the House kindly pass that message on?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, do so. It is one of my responsibilities to assist Members by ensuring that my colleagues respond to them on such issues.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his fitting tribute to the brave soldier from 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, the Staffords. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and fellow Mercians.

May we have a debate on the responsibility of banks for the way in which their financial products are sold by agents? My constituent, Mr Locke, was sold a product by an agent for Barclays in such a way that, without his knowledge, he was unable to claim the protection of section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 when the service was not delivered in the way that had been promised.

[Mr Lansley]

I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury about securing a response on that matter. The work of the Financial Conduct Authority will enable some of those issues to be pursued. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is being considered in another place. When it returns to this House, I hope that the measures will be further strengthened to protect consumers in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

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

A survey of businesses in my constituency found that exporters are seeing solid growth and that they expect that growth to continue. Given that next week is export week, please may we have a debate about the support that is provided to new exporters so that they can grab the opportunities that are available to their business and, in so doing, make a big difference to the national economy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend once again illustrates a general point with the welcome progress that is being made in his constituency. As I said earlier, the resources and support that the Government are giving to UK Trade & Investment are making a difference. The way in which the Foreign Secretary has reoriented the priorities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our diplomatic posts around the world is making a difference. The support that the Government are giving to bilateral chambers of commerce is making a difference too. The connections that that will provide to chambers of commerce and local enterprise partnerships in local areas will enable smaller businesses to network and to access export promotion and support more effectively than in the past.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Why does the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions not want to come to this place to defend himself against the serious allegations that have been made in The Times this morning?

[Mr Lansley]

I have reported the facts to the House. They do not give rise to the need for a statement because the allegations are not true.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It was announced recently that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs offices in York will be part-privatised. That is causing concern for a number of my constituents. May we have a debate on the outsourcing of jobs and, more importantly, on the fear that some of those jobs might be outsourced abroad?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the benefits of joint working and the sharing of services between Departments. I do not think that any decision has been made, other than that services will continue to be provided out of York and Alnwick. Beyond that, I do not know what the situation is. I will ask colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him about where shared services might be delivered.

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

Between 1997 and 2010, 50,000 hospital beds were cut, including a number in my constituency. We were told those beds were no longer needed, but in recent years, hospitals in and around my constituency have had to open emergency beds to deal with winter pressure, due to a failure of intermediate care services. In my constituency at the moment, the local Labour party is fighting against proposals for a new 30-bed intermediate care centre. May we have a debate on the urgent need for proper intermediate care services across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, although I suspect the House will recall just how strongly Members have felt in the past about the availability of intermediate care services, often in the context of locally accessible community hospitals. The devolution of responsibilities to clinical commissioning groups with active GP involvement gives an opportunity for that to be reconsidered, in particular by GPs who recognise the needs of their patients for treatment locally, accessible admissions and step-down care after admission to acute services. We might see a reduction in the number of beds in the most acute context, but care of the kind my hon. Friend refers to must also be available. I know that clinical commissioning groups will focus on that point.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to apply pressure on an issue that has come to my attention over the past 24 hours? A book for sale on Amazon, “To Train up a Child” by Michael and Debi Pearl advocates the beating of children under the age of 12 months, using a switch. The book recommends that a switch be cut from a willow tree, and be no longer than 12 inches in length and 8 cm in diameter. It advocates the use of paddles, rulers and other means to beat children from four months onwards. I have written to the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education, and to the Prime Minister’s Office and Amazon. Given that this issue has come to light only in the past 24 hours, will the Leader of the House advise how we can bring this issue to Parliament and apply pressure on Amazon to remove this book from sale?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is seeking a statement. That is what she wants.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and Members of the House will be rather shocked by what she has described. She has raised her point in the House, and I will certainly talk to colleagues in the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education. I hope there will be a proper response from those responsible for Amazon’s publicity and marketing of this book, but if that does not happen, my hon. Friends from the Department for Education will be in the Chamber on Monday. That might be a further opportunity if those responsible for this issue have not taken action.

[Mr Speaker]

I have a feeling the hon. Lady will be in her place on Monday. I hope that is helpful for today.