Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 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 14 October—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 15 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Deep Sea Mining Bill.

Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on zero-hours contracts, followed by a debate on high streets and changes to use orders. Both debates with arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 17 October—A debate on a motion relating to defence reforms, followed by a debate on a motion relating to funding support for deaf and young people. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 18 October—Private Members’ Bills.

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

Monday 21 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to the European public prosecutor’s office.

Wednesday 23 October—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 October—Private Members’ Bills.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I begin by echoing the Prime Minister in congratulating Professor Higgs, this year’s joint winner of the Nobel prize for physics for his work in explaining why the universe has mass? I think his theory may even be able to explain how the badgers managed to move the goalposts.

I note that the Offender Rehabilitation Bill is still strangely absent from future business, despite the fact that it completed its Lords stages well before the summer recess. The Leader of the House will know that on Report in the other place the Government lost a crucial vote and that clause 1 now reads:

“No alteration or reform may be made to the structure of the probation service unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”

We have had no such document, so will he explain why the Government have published contracts to sell off £800 million-worth of probation services and why probation staff have been given notice that they might be offloaded to companies such as G4S or Serco next spring?

It looks to me as though the Government are deliberately ignoring the will of Parliament by delaying the passage of this Bill until after they have privatised the probation service, so rendering their defeat in the Lords irrelevant. Could the Leader of the House prove that my theory is wrong by telling me when we can expect to see the Bill in this House?

The Government succeeded in rushing through their sinister gagging Bill last night without giving us adequate time for scrutiny. It now goes on to the Lords in similar haste so that the Government can get their gag in place in time for the next election. Given that Parliament has not been given the chance to scrutinise the Bill properly and it was not consulted on before it was published, an independent commission has been established to analyse its impact. Will the Leader of the House join me in giving evidence to that commission, and will he give his assurance that the Government will not proceed with the Bill until the findings are published?

We are just back from the conference recess and we learned a lot from the conferences of the two parties in power. The Liberal Democrats believe they have a right to be ensconced in their ministerial cars in perpetuity, whoever wins the election, and the Tories dream of a land of hope and glory. The reality is that, with this incompetent Government, it is more a land of hopeless Tories. I also understand that, following his conference speech, the Business Secretary has changed his voicemail to that old Liberal Democrat staple, “Please leave a message after the high moral tone.”

I am relieved to see both the Leader of the House and his deputy, and, indeed, the Patronage Secretary, in their place after the Government reshuffle at the beginning of the week. Reshuffles on either side are a difficult time for everyone and I want to take a moment to recognise the service of all those leaving their respective Front Benches as a result of Monday’s events. The Leader of the House and I have both been on the right and wrong sides of reshuffles in our time, so we have a personal insight into what people go through. I salute the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who lost his Government job on Monday and was good natured enough to repeat a tweet he received after he had been given the bad news, which said:

“Fisheries Minister sacked. Word is he’s gutted”.

Inexplicably, our friends in the Press Gallery treat reshuffle day as though it were a nerve-wracking episode of “The X Factor”. All that was missing on Monday was some tense music and Dermot O’Leary giving out hugs at the end of Downing street, although I did think that some aspects of the Government’s reshuffle really were worthy of reality TV. First, a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), was sacked for being too right wing. Given that criterion, I am surprised the Deputy Prime Minister managed to spare himself. Then we realised that the Prime Minister’s new strategy to stop his Back-Bench rebellions was to give as many people as possible a job. It seems that a small state needs a very big Government. It then emerged that the Deputy Prime Minister had put a conspiracy theorist in the Home Office behind the back of the furious Home Secretary. I understand that the book written by the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is shooting up the Amazon charts as a result of all the unwanted publicity. I am sure we all look forward to the new Minister telling us what really happened at Roswell, whether NASA faked the moon landings and whether Elvis ever did actually leave the building.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am enjoying our return to business questions after the recess.

I join the shadow Leader of the House and our respective party leaders in congratulating Professor Peter Higgs. It is wonderful that this country has produced so many leading scientists and, indeed, recipients of Nobel prizes. That is something that people in Russia might like to ponder when they call us a small country. I am reminded that there is one college in the small city of Cambridge on this small island that has more Nobel prize winners than the whole of Russia.

I am not yet in a position to enlighten the House on the timetable for our consideration of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. I will announce that in due course. The Ministry of Justice is rightly proceeding with plans that will improve the quality of probation services and, importantly, offer probation services to those who leave prison after short sentences. That is an important reform and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill in this House.

The shadow Leader of the House tried to return to the debate on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. However, it has now left this House. I met Lesley-Anne Alexander, Stephen Bubb and others to discuss the establishment of the commission. I made it clear that we would take account of anything that they said, but that it was important for them to consider the issues more quickly. They are establishing the commission two and a half months after the Bill was published and in the midst of its passage. I will gladly hear what they have to say, but we will proceed with the Bill in the Lords as planned. As we made clear in yesterday’s debate, we have a timetable for the passage of the Bill. It received full scrutiny on the Floor of this House and I know that their lordships will do a similar thing in their House.

I will not dwell on particular aspects of the reshuffle. As the shadow Leader of the House kindly observed, we have all been subject to these things over the years. My observation is that what goes around comes around. I agree with her that a number of my colleagues have given very good service as Ministers. We very much appreciate that and thank them for it.

We must always be aware that one can contribute to public life not only through ministerial office, but through many other forms of service in this House and in public life more generally. I left the shadow Cabinet and sat as a Back Bencher for a couple of years. That did not mean that I could not make a significant contribution. For example, I helped to write the provision in the Communications Act 2003 that provided that media mergers should be subject to a public interest test in the same way as other mergers, which has been found to be of considerable use. I therefore encourage my colleagues who have left the Government most recently to reflect on the other opportunities for public service.

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

Today, we will rightly have a debate on the funding of local councils. May we also have a debate on the future of small local councils? My constituency contains the smallest local council in England, which is finding it nigh on impossible to survive. We need to consider how we will fund small councils not only for the next two years, but for the next decade. We must consider whether they can survive in the changing world in which we live, given the recession that we are all facing.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about funding. If he has an opportunity to speak in today’s debate, I am sure that it will be relevant. I will say two things. First, while small local authorities have a valuable role in ensuring that democracy is accessible and relevant to their populations, many such public authorities have successfully explored ways of sharing costs and back-office services with other authorities, and that is very useful. Secondly, the BBC survey discovered that it is possible to secure more and better services with less money. That point will be important in this afternoon’s debate. It illustrates how public services have responded to the tough times that we inherited from the Labour Government and is a credit to those who are running local authorities.

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

Given that the general public think their regulators are ineffective, can time be found for a debate on whether we should replace the current regulators with organisations that can stop British consumers being ripped off?

[Mr Lansley]

It is particularly important that we ensure that regulators and the competition authorities are effective. Competition is what delivers for consumers, and regulators have access to concurrent competition powers with the competition authorities. We need to be sure that those powers are being used to deliver the benefits for consumers that competition should deliver.

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

I understand that we are now to call High Speed 2 the north-south railway. Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House during the next week to announce that just a fraction of that investment could be spent on providing a barely adequate east-west railway?

[Mr Lansley]

It is a great pleasure to have my hon. Friend here to ask a question. He was a distinguished occupant of the post of Deputy Leader of the House, and we thank him for that and for his work in his subsequent responsibilities related to farming.

Over the next few years, up to about 2020, there will be much larger investment elsewhere in Network Rail than in HS2. It is not absorbing resources that would otherwise be available for the rest of the network. On the contrary, we have among the largest ever investment programmes elsewhere in the rail system, and rightly so. Just as HS2 will meet clear north-south capacity requirements, we need other investment to meet capacity needs elsewhere.

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

Now that we are back in operation, may I ask the Leader of the House if we can reflect on something that troubles me—the growth of monopolies in almost every sector of life? Whether we are talking about the energy sector, the supermarkets or transport, there are organisations with a monopolistic tendency to do down the consumer. May we have a full debate on monopolies and how we regulate them?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that is exactly the same point that the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) made, and in a sense I think we agree about it. We need competition if we are to deliver benefits to consumers, and we need it to be robust. That competition is not driven naturally in markets; it has to be regulated for by authorities. We should not have a free-for-all in markets, because of the tendency towards monopoly. We must have effective competition regulation to make competition happen, and this Government have been keen to ensure that it is in place. To be fair to the previous Government, they also did that under competition and enterprise Acts. This country has established what is regarded as one of the more effective competition regimes, but we must continuously be vigilant and use the competition authorities to deliver it.

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

As my right hon. Friend knows, Plymouth university was named in the top 300 in last week’s Times Higher Education world rankings, putting it in the top 1.5% globally. Will he join me in congratulating it on its remarkable feat? May we have a debate on the role of universities in delivering growth in our economy both here in Britain and globally?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right, and I join him in expressing appreciation for the tremendous progress that Plymouth university has made and the standards that it is achieving. He and other Members will be well aware not only of the comparative strengths in our higher education system, which are dramatic, but of the contribution that they are making to our economic recovery and our future prospects. If we are going to win the global race, it will be on the basis of knowledge-based industries. The connection between universities and higher education and the new industries of the future is critical.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the privatisation strategy, which colleagues have mentioned, with a particular focus on Royal Mail? Many people feel that that sale is outrageous and that a lot of smaller investors have been locked out of the process by the fee level.

[Mr Lansley]

This House passed legislation that permitted the privatisation to go ahead, and many small investors will have seen the advantage in seeking to be party to that privatisation and part of the future of Royal Mail—a future that will be stronger by virtue of its access to private capital.

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

Today is world mental health day, and mental illness will be one of the major health challenges we face over the next 20 years. May we have a debate on the vital issue of achieving parity of esteem between physical and mental health conditions in the national health service?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and it is right to recall that issue today. The Backbench Business Committee has helpfully scheduled debates in the House on two occasions, which has allowed the House to make a signal contribution to identifying the problems associated with stigma and discrimination related to mental health. We should not rest on that, however, and must pursue the issue further. The Time To Change campaign—which has now rolled out across the country, supported by £60 million of Government funding—is capable of making a big difference. I recall it was trialled in Cambridgeshire, and a lot of people appreciated how it enabled many people to change their views about the impact and character of mental health problems, which so many people in all sorts of families suffer from.

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

On 16 August and 2 September I wrote to the Business Secretary on two matters: first, the Government’s role in selling fake bomb detectors to other countries, and, secondly, the export of chemicals that could be used to make chemical weapons in Syria. I have not received a reply to either letter and I wonder whether the Leader of the House’s wonderful civil servants could have a word with their counterparts in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to find out why the courtesies of the House are not being followed.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, of course. I will be glad to do that as I regard it as one of my responsibilities to assist Members in ensuring that we respond promptly—timeously, I should say—to requests for information and representations to Ministers.

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

May we have a debate on job creation and the possible impact of tax rises on larger businesses? Last week I visited Honeytop Speciality Foods in my constituency—a company that employs 900 people and is creating 200 extra jobs over the next month. It has exported naan bread to India and made Dunstable the crumpet capital of the United Kingdom. I do not want to see anything that would threaten investment and the creation of full-time British jobs.

[Mr Lansley]

Next time I am delayed by a traffic jam on the A5 in Dunstable I will take time out to enjoy a crumpet. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because it is important to illustrate that when we mention the 1.4 million new private sector jobs created since the election, we sometimes lose the human character behind that big number. Those 200 extra jobs in his constituency show that human benefit because these are people in jobs who are bringing home good salaries and changing their economic prospects and those of their town. That is multiplied many thousands of times across the country, and it is right for him to draw attention to the importance of supporting that.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Further to the answer of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a few weeks ago I wrote to the Home Secretary about her proposal for a £3,000 visa bond on visitors from India and Pakistan, which is causing consternation in my constituency. Last week a Home Office official rang my office to say that they were sorry, but there is a 12-month backlog of correspondence and they are waiting for the Home Secretary to sign those letters. Does the Leader of the House think that is acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will speak to the Home Office and see what the position is. I am sure there is not a 12-month backlog for Home Office correspondence, but I will find out the position and report back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the salaries and wages to be paid to staff in the national health service? There have been reports that there will be no wage increase next year, but one is expected. Does the Leader of the House agree that we rely very much on the dedication and hard work of our NHS staff, that we should not treat them in that way, and that they should not be taken for granted in that way?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that pay in the NHS is the subject of independent pay review. Therefore, to that extent, the recommendations on future pay will wait on the results of independent review. It is quite proper that the Government, in that context, should provide evidence to the pay review, which has happened. The affordability of any pay rise must have a bearing on that evidence, bearing in mind the overall Government approach, which is for the overall increase in pay to be of the order of 1% in the year ahead. As I know very well, there is contractual pay progression in the NHS. When I was Health Secretary, it was about 1.4% per year. I believe it has increased recently. As he will understand, there is an obvious relationship between the affordability of progression pay of that kind and any headline basic pay increase.

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

I have previously asked a question on the sale by the Ministry of Justice of the former magistrates court at Fenton town hall, to which I received a reply stating that the Ministry of Justice wanted to receive maximum funds for the sale. Given that neither the Ministry of Justice nor its predecessor Departments have ever paid so much as a penny to the people of Stoke-on-Trent to buy or rent the building, may we have a debate in Government time on Government Departments selling buildings that properly belong to local people? Perhaps we could have the debate before the petition is delivered to No. 10, which will happen soon. It is outrageous that the MOJ is selling a building that belongs to the people of Stoke-on-Trent, who have never received a penny for it.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will look at the correspondence—I recall that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question previously and has received a reply. If the MOJ has proper ownership of a building, it must, not least in the interest of the taxpayer, ensure that it realises best value for it, but the Government have been clear on the opportunities local communities should have in relation to assets of community value. I cannot promise a debate, but I will look at the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

As part of its reporting of national security issues, The Guardian has not denied sending the detailed family and personal information of our security agents across borders. That is illegal and it is threatening our agents and their families. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary to clarify that the law will be upheld, whether or not the organisation involved is hiding behind the fig leaf of journalism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and the House know that the freedom of speech we prize so highly comes with a responsibility. Members of the House and the public will have been struck by what the director general of MI5 said this week. I am sure he was right to say what he said. In that context, I will ask the Home Secretary to consider my hon. Friend’s point and how she might inform the House in due course, but it seems to me that, regardless of any action taken by the Government, it is incumbent on the press—meaning, in this context, The Guardian—to exercise accountability for its decisions.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I declare my interest and remind the Leader of the House that 1 million people in this country have undiagnosed diabetes? He is the architect of the health and wellbeing boards. May we have a statement or debate on the amount of money they are spending to create awareness of the condition among the general public? I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for the good work she did on diabetes before she was moved from the Department of Health.

[Mr Lansley]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the Under-Secretary for the work she did, which has taken us into a new era in public health. We are protecting the real value of the resources within the NHS budget, which we are increasing in real terms, but a larger increase is going to public health, because, as he correctly identifies, if we can anticipate future illness and act to prevent it, it is important that we do so—in the case of diabetes, early diagnosis and intervention has successful outcomes. Health and wellbeing boards, as part of their joint commissioning in public health, will look at how they can ensure that people access diagnoses of the conditions that place them at risk.

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

Given the importance of localism, which the Government have recognised, and in the light of the new powers communities have been given to influence housing decisions in their area, does the Leader of the House agree that the time is now right for a debate on a community right of appeal in the planning process? That is not the same thing as a third party right, which the Government have considered and rejected, but at the moment local communities feel disfranchised in the appeal process.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend might like to note that on Monday 21 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be here with his colleagues and she may consider it worth her while to raise this issue then. We must be careful in this context. It is important to ensure, as we have, that we strengthen the local or community voice in the establishment of local development frameworks and—as I have seen done very effectively—through neighbourhood plans, to create a framework so that those who exercise their right to bring forward development on land they own or have acquired do so in the context of the community’s view about the use of land in their area. Otherwise, we might run the risk of a chilling effect on development as a consequence of subsequent rights of appeal for the community against planning permissions that have been granted.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Demand at Trussell Trust food banks has gone up 800% under this Government. When can we have a debate on this cost of living crisis?

[Mr Lansley]

We are continually engaging in a debate on the issues relating to cost of living, and how families are able to cope with the consequences of the reduction of wealth in this country by 7.2% under the last Government, in the most serious recession we have faced in a century. It is inconceivable that such a reduction in wealth would not have consequences across society. Fortunately the number of workless households is now at its lowest level, and those who are in work are increasingly finding that their tax bills are going down. Inevitably and rightly, there are charitable and other endeavours to help those people who are in hardship, just as the benefit system should. We will have further opportunities to debate how we can target that support to best effect, and I look forward to those.

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

Perhaps we could have a wider debate on planning laws. The issue that has had a real impact on the Ribble Valley, whose core strategy is not in place, is the number of speculative planning applications that have been put in. The local council turns them down, they go to appeal and the decisions are overturned. It is not only communities that feel frustrated, but local councillors, who wonder what the use is in rejecting such planning applications only to have their decisions overturned time and again.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, not least because South Cambridgeshire—he will not be surprised to learn—has a heavy demand for new housing and many applications. We want to ensure that we also meet housing need by having local plans in place, including neighbourhood plans, so that decisions can be made consistent with the local understanding of how planning should be structured in the area. That is what needs to happen. If those local plans show how they will meet the housing demand for the next five years, they should be robust in the face of challenge.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on his announcement that only the first entry results for GCSEs will count towards school league tables? Any improvement in a pupil’s progress through his or her hard work and excellent teaching will not be counted. Is that not the wrong way to deal with multiple exam entries?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important to have clear and meaningful indicators of school performance. If I may, I will ask a Minister at the Department to respond to the point the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, rather than attempt to do so myself.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

With regard to private Members’ Bills and the forthcoming return of the European Union (Referendum) Bill, will the Leader of the House remind the House that the Bill is such a beautiful yet fragile flower that seeking to improve it by amending it will be about as useful to its life as throwing a gallon of poison over it?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This important Bill is drafted in a straightforward way. Even with the best will in the world—he is very knowledgeable about the procedures of the House—seeking to improve private Members’ Bills in a way that is no more than tinkering risks prejudicing them. Those who, like me, share the view that the Bill should pass—it will give people the say that they should have, and at the right time, in the future of this country’s relationship with Europe—should accept that and get on with it.

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

Total UK production decreased by 1.1% between July 2013 and August 2013, with manufacturing decreasing by 1.2%. Between August 2012 and August 2013, production output decreased by 1.5%. Investment in plant and machinery for factories remains below 2007 levels. The Leader of the House talks about the global race and the Chancellor talks about the march of the makers. May we have a debate on manufacturing and talk about why UK manufacturing is in full retreat at the moment?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to remind the House that business confidence is up, consumer confidence is up, exports are up, construction is up, manufacturing is up, growth forecasts are up, and that only this week the International Monetary Fund’s international outlook upgraded its forecast for the UK economy for this year and next year by more than any other major economy.

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

Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to make a statement about the recent changes proposed in Europe to both the packaging of tobacco and the banning of menthol cigarettes? While we all support anything that reduces the number of people who take up smoking and reduces the number of cigarettes that people smoke, the House needs to have the opportunity to debate this serious health issue.

[Mr Lansley]

These are important issues and the House will want to consider the agreement in Europe this week on the tobacco directive. Rather than the Secretary of State coming to the House to make a statement, the proper route is for the issue to be scrutinised by the European Scrutiny Committee. If the Committee then recommends a debate in the House, we will seek to achieve that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by a number of parents who are concerned about the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Conservative party conference on “earn or learn”. This might just be one of the attention grabbing gimmicks we expect from the Government during conference season, but people are concerned about it. May we have a debate so that the Government do not rush into this ill-thought-out policy?

[Mr Lansley]

Parents should be encouraged by what the Prime Minister has said. All indicators regarding young people’s prospects suggest that they should be in either education, employment or training. Not being in education, employment or training can cause serious damage to their prospects. We are setting out to minimise the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and I hope the hon. Lady supports that.

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

It was announced last week that developers had signed a legal agreement with Blaenau Gwent council for construction of the Circuit of Wales. It was also announced that the project will be part-funded by the Welsh Government. May we therefore have a debate on the subject of devolved Governments using public funds potentially to distort markets—in this case, a matter of great concern to the Association of Motor Racing Circuit Owners?

[Mr Lansley]

I need to point out that one of my constituents is the chief executive of the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, so I will make no comment about that. I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Treasury to respond to my hon. Friend’s point.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on why the Government are refusing to do anything about the scandal of rip-off premium rate phone lines? The Which? report out today shows that this is a continuing scandal, yet I understand that the Government plan to take no action on it. Why are the Government always on the side of rip-off big business rather than the little guy?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, the Government have been very clear that public services should not use premium rates so that people can access public services without paying a premium price to do so. If I may say so, when I was Secretary of State for Health, the roll-out of 111 as a service could be distinguished in a number of ways from its predecessor service NHS Direct, including being free to those who use it. There is a wider issue about the use and impact of premium rate services, particularly from utility companies and the like: customers, and particularly vulnerable people, should be able to access them without having to pay an extra charge. I shall ask colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to the hon. Gentleman on this point.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The closure of the A344 alongside Stonehenge appears to have caused chaos along the A303. The Stonehenge traffic action group is very keen for the roads Minister to make a statement on progress made towards dualling this infamous stretch of road. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that happens?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I sat in a queue on the A303 in August, so I had the benefit of that experience myself. I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport about this. As my hon. Friend and the House know, the Department is well aware of the problem and is seeking to deal with it. I hope that, by the end of the year, it will be in a position to make announcements as a result of its study of the relevant options.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My local authority wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), about cuts to the fire service on Merseyside. The reply it received, however, was rather disappointing because it came from a civil servant and not from the Minister. Will the Leader of the House confirm that replies to local authorities, especially on such important matters, should come from a Minister, not a civil servant?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will check the position with the Minister responsible for the fire service, who is assiduous in his duties. I know that he would normally expect to respond to local authorities on this issue; we need to know what happened. It might have had something to do with the summer recess and an attempt to ensure that the local authority received an early reply, but I will inquire into the circumstances.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the lamentably slow way in which the banks are dealing with cases of alleged mis-selling of interest rate swap products, which affected many businesses across the country, and on the fact that tailored business loans, in respect of which similar products have the same damaging implications for people’s livelihoods and businesses, are not included in the review at all?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to raise these issues and to be persistent in raising them. We need the banks to come forward with their compensation schemes as quickly as possible. I will raise my hon. Friend’s particular point with colleagues in the Treasury and ask them to respond.

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

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

On 9 August, the Hull Daily Mail led with the following report:

“Yesterday the Prime Minister…said A & E departments would get a share of the money over the next two years, to ensure they are fully prepared for winter.”

On 10 September, I learned that Hull will not get a penny of the £250 million set aside for this winter. May we have a debate on why Hull, despite its real needs, is not getting a fair share of funding—it applies to council funding, too—from this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady will recall, a written statement reported that there had been full consultation between the Department, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority to establish how resources could be used to offset the specific risk of their not meeting the required service performance standards. In fact, Addenbrooke’s hospital, which is in my constituency, received no resources, although its staff had worked immensely hard to maintain their performance standards. Ministers are only too aware of the issue, but they have focused their additional resources on managing the greatest risks throughout the country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I understand that in Wellingborough the song “Maggie May” is being sung with great gusto today following the publication by the Home Secretary of the Immigration Bill. Lefties hate the Bill, the Labour party is against it, and I understand that some Liberal Democrat MPs are queasy about it—so it is clearly the right Bill. Will the Leader of the House insist that the Immigration Minister come to the House and introduce it as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to report that the Immigration Minister is available and ready to introduce the Bill presently. As my hon. Friend will have noted, I have announced a date for its Second Reading, so that we can make progress with a vital measure that will ensure fairness in relation to access to services and the country’s immigration structures.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Like me, the Leader of the House represents constituents who are heavily affected by the A14. He will have been as saddened as I was to learn of a fatal car accident that occurred in the summer on the A14 near Kettering, in which two young people in their twenties lost their lives because a drunk driver was driving along the road in the wrong direction. That drunk driver was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by Northampton Crown court. Along with many of my constituents, I feel that that simply is not enough. May we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice, or a debate on the Floor of the House, about the sentences that are imposed on people who kill passengers on our roads as a result of either bad driving or drink-driving?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely share my hon. Friend’s distress at what happened. The character of such events, not only on the A14 but on other roads, is very disturbing. My hon. Friend may have heard the Prime Minister say, during Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice had asked the Sentencing Council to review sentences for driving offences, including the offence of causing death through dangerous driving. I will refer my hon. Friend’s question to the Secretary of State for Justice, and will try to establish when he may be able to report further on the issue.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the booming manufacturing sector in Yorkshire? Today, we heard the sweet news that Haribo is to open a new £92 million factory in the county, which will provide 300 new jobs and which has received £6.4 million from the regional growth fund. In my patch, we learnt over the summer that Disposables UK would be moving to new premises; Wentworth Valve is also moving to new premises, and the order books of Camira Fabrics are bulging. Will my right hon. Friend allocate plenty of time for a long debate on the manufacturing success in Yorkshire?

[Mr Lansley]

That is immensely encouraging news from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am delighted to hear it. I have been struck by the number of new projects that are being supported by the regional growth fund. I believe that about half a million new jobs will be associated with projects that are receiving such support, or for which such support is in the pipeline.

As we all know, creating the right economic framework is the fundamental way of bringing new investment to the country and promoting new investment in companies here. That is what the Government are doing and what we will continue to do, and I know that, as a consequence, more companies will report having received new investment of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred.

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

May we have a debate on how councils are responding to community applications for “assets of community value” registrations? Leeds city council recently turned down applications for a playing field and a swimming pool in Headingley and Hyde Park, where there are very few such facilities, on the grounds that the community would not realistically be able to buy them. I do not think that that is appropriate in terms of legislation. May we have a debate to establish whether the community could at least try to bid for those facilities?

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important point. I will ask Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond specifically on how the new legislation should be interpreted in relation to what should be entered on to the register of community assets and whether some pre-emptive decision should be made about whether the community would be able to bid for that. It is important that assets of community value can include sports fields and sports facilities, and the right to bid really applies, of course, when that list of community assets is established, so the point my hon. Friend makes is important.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Education Committee recently published a report on school governance and school improvement. The report has generated some interesting comments from the Government, so the Committee would like to have a debate in this Chamber. Will the Lord Privy Seal consider that request, and may I say that I hope that debate is held in this Chamber so we can all focus on what is an important step in the right direction through improving accountability and localism in our schools?

[Mr Lansley]

I encourage the Select Committee to seek time for such a debate through the Liaison Committee, which has a certain allocation of time, although the Backbench Business Committee has substantial time available in the week after next, and not only on Thursday, so I hope it will take good advantage of that, not just in respect of the school governance issue but also in the light of what we have read this week in the OECD report. I have to say I was staggered by this simple fact, if by nothing else: we are among the three highest performing countries in literacy for 55 to 65-year-olds, but we are among the bottom three countries in literacy proficiency among 16 to 24-year-olds. All of us in public service and public office should be ashamed of the fact that we are not making progress in improving literacy and numeracy skills among the young people currently leaving school and those who have been leaving school over recent years. That is shameful, and we in this House should focus on it.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

May we find time for an urgent debate on the deteriorating situation in the Maldives, where the first round of a presidential election has been annulled and it is feared the authorities are trying to obstruct the return to power of President Nasheed, who was ousted in a coup last year and who clearly won an election that was described by international observers as free and fair?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, these are disturbing circumstances. I have not visited the Maldives, but many people in this country are familiar with it from holidays and the like, and I will ask my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to update the House on this matter at oral questions, if not before.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Given that the 4 million self-employed in our country make a huge contribution to the economy and many have the potential to take on a first employee and bring thousands into the workplace, may we have a debate in the House on the support available for first-time employers in order to help further strengthen the entrepreneurial spirit across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I have not yet had an opportunity to announce to the House the timing of the introduction and consideration of the national insurance contributions Bill, which is relevant to the point my hon. Friend rightly raises. We know that so many of the new jobs being created are coming from small businesses, and we have perhaps the highest rate of start-up businesses. We hope many of those start-up businesses will move from being sole traders or one self-employed person to somebody who starts to employ others for the first time, and that Bill will enable us to introduce the employment allowance next April. That £2,000 off each employer’s national insurance bill for employment will seriously help in encouraging people to take that first step to becoming an employer as well as a trader.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a debate on volunteering? I am pleased to say that Tamworth has more volunteers per head of population than anywhere else in Staffordshire, and they are ably led by Rev. Alan Barrett and his wife Janet, who are soon to retire from St Editha’s church to Cumbria. That debate would allow us to discuss the value of volunteers and praise volunteers such as Alan and Janet, who make it happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will join in thanking Rev. Alan Barrett and Janet for their voluntary service and the leadership they have given to voluntary service. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the record of volunteering in his constituency, which is reflected across the country; volunteering continues to be well supported. I hope that we will even increase it in the future, not least because of what the Prime Minister has done in promoting the National Citizen Service, in which this summer more than 30,000 young people will take part. That creates for them the prospect of a lifetime of public service and volunteering.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Two days ago, the Competition Commission made a bizarre decision that may force the sale of the much-loved and well-used Cambridge Arts Picturehouse. The Competition Commission has previously refused to act on Stagecoach’s near-complete monopoly of bus services in Cambridge or on Tesco’s dominance in the grocery market in Cambridge, but it is acting in a case where not only do the public not have concern, but many thousands have signed a petition against the Competition Commission’s decision. May we please have a debate on whether the Competition Commission should focus on real local monopolies and leave the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse alone?

[Mr Lansley]

I say to my neighbour, having visited the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, that I agree with him; it is an excellent facility in Cambridge, and I do not think for a minute that it is in the same market as some of the multiplexes outside the centre of Cambridge. The job of the Competition Commission is to identify markets and act to restrict monopolies in those markets, but I do not think we are talking about the same market here. The point my hon. Friend makes is a good one. Speaking purely personally, and not for the Government in this context, I share his view that there is no cause for the Competition Commission to seek to intervene in the ownership of the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse.

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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

That is why my assumption is that, although the Government might not respond directly by accepting the new clause, colleagues on the Front Bench will be able to answer the point made by the Electoral Commission, as there is obviously regular engagement between the Government and the commission. I hope those on the Front Bench will be positive about that point.

It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said earlier, that new clause 3 is not supported by the Electoral Commission. For want of other guidance, the Electoral Commission is always the best place to go to for a steer on the appropriate response, so I will not support the new clause.

My concern is that the Government should give time for Committees to report and for their deliberations to be considered and that, when the Electoral Commission expressly supports the Government’s proposals or proposed changes, the Government should be responsive.

Let me make a general point about the timetable. Obviously, the Bill took a huge amount of time in gestation and was then born very quickly—it shot out of the cot, or cradle, or wherever it had been kept—

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

That is often the way.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes, it is. The Bill was held in dock for a long time, but then somebody suddenly pressed the button and out it came. I do not think that anyone can complain that there has not been enough time in Committee or on Report; the complaint is that, as people know, we have not had the pre-legislative scrutiny that all Bills ideally should have. I know that the Leader of the House would accept that in principle.

We are in the second day on Report and we must have Third Reading, so we cannot now do all the revision and careful scrutiny that we would like to. That is probably true across the House. I am in favour of many of the Bill’s principles, so I do not have issues with some of the changes, but I hope that the Government will ensure that there is the time for that careful consideration and to listen to the voices before the Bill goes from this place to the House of Lords.

A commission has been set up, prompted by the voluntary sector, to be chaired by the Lord Bishop of Oxford, who is a Member of the House of Lords. It is considering these issues and will have a valuable contribution to make, provided it can report soon. I hope, too, that the Government will take seriously what it says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contribution to the debate. We have been busily engaged in considering the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report on either side of the summer and conference recesses and during the September sitting. The contributions of Members have exposed the issues and enabled the debate to take place.

As on Second Reading, I thank the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its scrutiny. I met the Committee on the morning of the Second Reading debate and my colleagues met it before that. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), made manifest his irritation with the amount of time that was available for that scrutiny on several occasions. However, I thank him and his colleagues for their participation.

With regard to our debates yesterday and today, I wrote to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Monday to explain in detail why I believe the Bill to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. I look forward to the Committee’s report. My colleagues and I will take full account of its conclusions, which I hope it will reach soon.

I thank my good friend and colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has responsibility for employee relations. Owing to the length of today’s debates, she has not been able to explain part 3 as fully as she would have wished. I am extremely grateful to the former Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). I am also grateful to the officials who have supported the ministerial team and to parliamentary counsel for all their work on the Bill.

I do not want this moment to pass without expressing my thanks to the kaleidoscope of talent—I use those words advisedly—that has participated in the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I know that in order to try to construct an Opposition they found it interesting to see how our team was constructed. The shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) all contributed to our consideration of the Bill. They were an Opposition in search of an argument and they did their best.

The Government made a commitment that we would be the most open Government ever and that we would promote transparency in public life. We have sought to improve public confidence in our political system. We have been the first Government to publish details of the meetings that Ministers and permanent secretaries have had with external organisations. We have published details of our relationships with media editors and the like. We have published details of hospitality, departmental business plans and procurement processes. There is a wide range of raw data that people can assess for themselves. We have always sought to take transparency further.

The purpose of the Bill is to achieve transparency by fulfilling our coalition commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists so that the public know who lobbyists represent when they meet decision makers, and by making it clearer where and how money is being spent by third parties at elections to influence the outcomes of those elections. We are also seeking transparency by giving the public, and members of trade unions, the confidence that they know who their members are. Together, those measures will increase transparency in the political system.

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Jonathan Edwards]

On Second Reading I listed a number of lobbying scandals that have decimated and dominated politics in this place for far too long: donations for dinners, cash for honours, cash for questions, a ministerial cab for hire. Which of those scandals will the Bill stop in future?

[Mr Lansley]

The character of each of those scandals is of a particular kind. We are setting out to ensure that relationships between lobbyists and key decision makers in Government are more transparent in future, so that those who impact on our political system do so in the glare of public life. For most of the things the hon. Gentleman describes, people were trying to seek influence covertly, and in some cases were completely contrary to the law and the codes of conduct of this House and elsewhere, or of government. We must expose those relationships everywhere, where we can, and when people breach the code, we will deal with it.

The Bill has been widely debated in the House and beyond, and I thank Members for sharing their views, because healthy debate is a cornerstone of our democracy. The measures in the Bill have also been misrepresented, and during the passage of the Bill we have fully exposed where those misrepresentations lie. The hon. Member for Nottingham North explained on many occasions in the course of his 190 minutes of offerings that there had not been sufficient scrutiny of the Bill. I gently say to him, however, that one does not take the moral high ground over lack of scrutiny by taking up more time than is needed to explain the issues. [Interruption.] Actually, I think there are relatively few issues, and we have exposed them clearly and answered them fully. I encourage Members in the other place to read the debates. They will see that, as the Bill completed its passage through this House, those issues have been answered, and by virtue of the amendments tabled the Bill has been improved. As is always the case, all is capable of improvement.

[Simon Hughes]

There can be no serious objection to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill, but there are clearly continuing concerns about part 2. The Leader of the House has committed to considering the report by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee when it is published, but will he confirm the undertaking that he and his colleagues will work to ensure that the misrepresentations are dealt with, and that the concerns—and some uncertainties—can be discussed with Ministers, the voluntary sector and others, including the Electoral Commission, in the days ahead?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope I will be clear, just as I thought my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was clear during discussions on part 2 of the Bill. We had a number of meetings with a range of organisations, and we listened carefully to points raised in this House and by those organisations. I met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations before Committee stage, and I was clear that we would make changes to the definition of expenditure for electoral purposes, to remove what it regarded as the risks and uncertainty associated with those definitions. It was not our intention to change in substance the test for what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes, albeit that we intend—rightly, I think—to introduce greater transparency by including the range of controlled activities in a way consistent with recommendations by the Electoral Commission in its regulatory review.

It is important for us to have a registration threshold, so that those who want to spend a significant amount of money to influence electoral outcomes do so openly. They will not be prevented from doing that, but they will have to do it in a transparent way. It is important to get big money out of trying to influence electoral outcomes. It is therefore important to bring down the threshold, and for it to be disaggregated so that it cannot be spent disproportionately in individual constituencies or small geographic areas.

We did not want to change the test, in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, that only expenditure that could reasonably be regarded as intended to procure or promote the electoral success of a party or candidate should be controlled expenditure. That will still be true. In fact, it will be even more narrowly true, because we have taken out the strand relating to enhancing the standing of political parties at relevant elections, as it was capable of being used to create uncertainty.

Members have quoted from the letter by Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of NVCO. I urge them to read it carefully. It says that there is uncertainty associated with the definition in the 2000 Act, and that that continues to be the case. It is the job of the Electoral Commission—taking the test we have here, which is as clear as we could make it—to inform organisations through the guidance it produces. We stand ready to work with the Electoral Commission. It is an independent organisation and it is for it to decide how it goes about that task, but we could not have made it any clearer.

[Lady Hermon]

The Leader of the House is being most generous in taking interventions. May I ask him to address one particular issue that pertains to Northern Ireland? He emphasised the need for transparency and the need to know who influences elections, and I think we all agree that that is important. However, the Government have agreed that the anonymity of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland will continue. That can no longer be justified on security grounds, because Northern Ireland has successfully hosted, without incident, the G8 summit in Fermanagh and the world police and fire games. How does he square those two things?

[Mr Lansley]

Each has its own particular characteristics and the Speaker will forgive me if I do not respond to that point, as I think it is outwith the terms of the Bill. We do not intend to change that. We are introducing transparency relating to expenditure by third parties seeking to influence the outcome of elections. The Bill has no impact on the donations that individuals or organisations make to political parties, or on how political parties spend money at elections.

We were not able, on Report, to discuss the final group of amendments on part 3 of the Bill. We continue to value the important role trade unions play in public life. We recognise that their influence extends beyond their own members, which is why it is important for members, employers and the public to have confidence that unions know who their members are. The Bill is in no sense an attack on trade unions. That is not correct. The measures are not designed to make it harder for unions to operate. I will be clear: the Bill will not prevent unions from taking industrial action; it will not require unions to collect more data; and nor will it place membership data in the hands of employers. Instead, it provides the public with reassurance that trade unions are fulfilling the duties to which they are already bound. Part 3 of the Bill strengthens requirements in existing legislation to ensure that unions can demonstrate that they keep an up-to-date and accurate membership register.

Part 1 will create transparency with regard to who is lobbying whom in relation to key decision makers. The Labour party, and last year’s report by the Select Committee on the earlier consultation, seeks a different Bill—one that creates a large-scale bureaucracy listing everybody who engages in any kind of lobbying activity. We have looked at that approach, and, frankly, it is not remotely justified. Transparency is the way forward: transparency in lobbying and in third-party campaigning. When people set out to influence the electoral outcomes, they must do so in a transparent way.

Charities, voluntary organisations and third parties who want to campaign on policies and issues will continue to be free to do so, as long as they do not step over the line and set out to influence electoral outcomes directly. There will be transparency in how trade unions represent their members, because they will know who their members are. These are the ways we will provide reassurance in the political system and enhance confidence through transparency and accountability. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Leader of the House.

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

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I say to the Leader of the House that I did not realise that Mr Cash wished to come in? I call Mr Cash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I do not wish to detain the House for long. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). When the Leader of the House responds to the debate and speaks to his amendments, it is very important that he makes it clear that we as MPs are not placing ourselves in any special position other than to represent the interests of others, which is why we have been sent to this place.

The two instances that I have raised in interventions are highly personal to me, namely HS2 and the National Autistic Society. When people throughout the country read the HS2 Bill they immediately interpreted it as a drag on their lobbying of Government and on MPs who want to speak against the project. More importantly, we have to make sure that charities and other bodies that seek our help do not misconstrue the situation and think that we will be gagged in any way. This is called the gagging Bill in common parlance, which is why I want to make sure that the Leader of the House gives us a reassurance, as I am sure he will. The one thing I know is that he has been listening very carefully to the cases that have been made across the board. Rather than detain the House any longer, I look forward to receiving the reassurances sought by Government and Opposition Members that the Bill will not inhibit us in any way.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this short debate, and particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Stone (Mr Cash) for tabling the new clause. I hope I will be able to reassure them that, through Government amendments 28 and 29, we will achieve the objectives that they and other Members seek. I hope that this debate on Report will begin with full agreement on how the Bill should be structured.

There are two issues with regard to this group of amendments: one is parliamentary privilege and the other is the position of Members of Parliament themselves. I reassure Members that the Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill’s provisions do not infringe on parliamentary privilege. The Government recognise that the privileges of Parliament are an integral and, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has said, necessary part of our constitutional arrangements. As the 18th century Clerk of the House, John Hatsell, commented, they are absolutely necessary for the due execution of Parliament’s powers.

Parliamentary privilege is an intrinsic and essential element of our democracy. It upholds Members’ right to freedom of speech and protects Parliament from external interference.

Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 reflects those historic and vital rights by providing that

“the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

This Bill will in no way challenge the freedom of speech of parliamentarians.

Equally, we are committed to ensuring that the provisions do not intrude on Parliament’s exclusive cognisance and to upholding the principle famously set out by Sir William Blackstone in 1830, that

“the whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its origin in this one maxim, that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House and not elsewhere.”

As Members have made clear and helpfully acknowledged, following careful consideration we have concluded that the inclusion of a reference to parliamentary privilege in the Bill—either in the manner provided for by paragraph 1 of schedule 1 or in that outlined in new clause 1, if we were to proceed with it—could invite examination, discussion and judgment from sources external to Parliament. The retention or inclusion of such a provision could prompt unhelpful rulings by the courts regarding the nature or extent of privilege or its interaction with other statute. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and by the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

I am grateful to the Committee and to its Chairman for his contribution to the debate. The Committee’s view and its helpful reference to the views of Lord Judge have helped us reach a conclusion. I hope the Committee will agree that Government amendment 28 meets its objective.

I am confident that Members will share our desire to protect Parliament’s right to regulate its own affairs and, as provided in the Bill of Rights, not to have its proceedings questioned. I am equally confident that the way in which that will be ensured in the context of this Bill will be to remove the reference to privilege outlined in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 and, as a consequence and for the same reason, to resist the inclusion of a similar provision as proposed by new clause 1. Government amendment 28 will therefore help to protect the privileges of Parliament from undue judicial interpretation in the context of this statute. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex would withdraw the new clause in consequence of Government amendment 28.

[Lady Hermon]

I have listened carefully to the Leader of House’s explanation and am slightly concerned. Paragraph 22 of the explanatory notes states specifically that paragraphs 1 and 2 of schedule 1

“make provision to ensure that no provision of the bill could be infringing parliamentary privilege”.

Is the Leader of the House saying, therefore, that if paragraphs 1 and 2 are removed by the Government’s amendments there is no possibility of any other provision in the Bill infringing parliamentary privilege? Is that the assurance he is giving?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex explained the matter well. A provision was inserted into the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 because that statute would have impinged directly on the privileges and rights of Parliament. A saving provision was necessary in that context.

Lord Judge was right in what he said to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and that is at the heart of our thinking on the matter. If we say in some Bills that nothing in the Bill infringes the principle of parliamentary privilege, not only would that be subject to judicial interpretation, but courts might conclude that other statutes that do not have such a saving provision may infringe parliamentary privilege. They might take the lack of a saving provision as an indication that Parliament did not expressly wish to avoid that happening. That is not our view. Our view is that parliamentary privilege subsists, that nothing in the Bill will infringe it and that courts should not interpret any part of it as infringing parliamentary privilege, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex explained.

The second issue under this group is the exemption of Members of Parliament. The Government have always been clear that the normal activity of a Member of Parliament will not be captured by the definition of consultant lobbying. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) referred to the report by the Standards Committee. I wrote to him with an explanation at the end of August, which stated:

“In order to be required to register under the Bill a person must lobby ‘in the course of a business’ and ‘in return for payment’.”

That is part of the definition of consultant lobbying. I continued:

“Performing one’s public role as a Member of Parliament does not amount to carrying on a business and is therefore exempt. This is equally true of anyone holding an elected office such as an MEP or councillor.”

I might add, in response to an earlier question, that the same would be true of a Member of the House of Lords. A Member of the House of Lords, in exercising their public duty, would not be regarded as carrying on a business and would therefore be exempt.

Concern was expressed by various people that the normal activities of elected officials might be captured by the provisions on the register. I am happy to provide the reassurance that they will not be. That was never our intention and, in our view, the Bill will not have that effect.

Out of an abundance of caution, in addition to the “in the course of a business” requirement, the Bill included a specific, overlapping exemption for Members of Parliament because of their uniquely high level of communication with Ministers and permanent secretaries. However, it became clear on Second Reading that there was dissatisfaction with the exemption, as drafted. That has been expressed again in this debate. There was concern that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 described the normal activities of a Member of Parliament inadequately.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am listening carefully to what the Leader of the House is saying. Of course, all this depends on what one means by the normal activities of a Member of Parliament. Does he agree that the normal activities of a Member of Parliament include representing anybody, so long as we are not paid to represent them? We are free to represent anybody, whether they be a business in the City or a charity.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand that completely. If I have not explained my point fully, let me explain it again. Under clause 2(1)(a), part of the definition of consultant lobbying is that it is carried out

“in the course of a business and in return for payment”.

When the Bill was introduced, in order to make it absolutely clear that Members of Parliament were not covered, we included a provision about the communications that are made by Members of Parliament in paragraph 2 of schedule 1.

On Second Reading, I explained that we believed that Members of Parliament were exempt by virtue of their public duty meaning that they were not engaged in the course of a business. It was clear that the inclusion of the additional provision in schedule 1 created an unnecessary and unhelpful confusion because, as has been said in this debate, it does not encapsulate all the activities of a Member of Parliament in carrying out their functions.

Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) said in Committee that we would therefore adopt a different approach. I thank her for all her work on the Bill and welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for cities and constitution. I will not ask him to explain the Bill at this stage, but will allow him to take responsibility for the policy when he has had a chance to apply his considerable talents to it.

We discussed, welcomed and accepted what the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said and, in Committee, we accepted an amendment that he tabled. That amendment resulted in an improved exemption in schedule 1, which clarified the interaction between parliamentarians and the register. Members will recall that the definition of consultant lobbying states that it must be

“in the course of a business and in return for payment”.

Paragraph 6(2) of schedule 1 states that “payment” in those circumstances

“does not include any sums payable to a member of either House of Parliament”—

again, this refers to the point about Members of the House of Lords—under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, pursuant to a resolution, or out of money provided by Parliament or the Consolidated Fund.

Members of Parliament are therefore exempt under both limbs of the definition. They are not engaged in the course of a business and the payment that they receive is not regarded as payment for the purposes of the Bill. For that reason, we think that there is now a cast-iron, belt-and-braces exemption for Members of Parliament.

I might add that Members of the House of Lords are exempt in so far as they are acting in their public duties. If a Member of this House received payment for contacting a Minister or permanent secretary, it would be contrary to the Members’ code of conduct. The Chairman of the Standards Committee will correct me if I am wrong. The code in the House of Lords makes it clear that nobody can undertake paid advocacy in the House of Lords or advise somebody on the proceedings of the House, but it does not preclude somebody engaging in lobbying activity in the course of a business and in return for payment. My reading is that it is not inconceivable that some Members of the House of Lords would be required to register as consultant lobbyists as a consequence of their business activities. They would certainly not be required to register by virtue of their activities as Members of the House of Lords. I apologise for that detour.

As a consequence of accepting the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, we would have removed paragraph 2 of schedule 1 in Committee, but it was not reached. Amendment 29 will remove that redundant paragraph. I hope that the Opposition accept that amendment 78 is therefore unnecessary. I also ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex to withdraw new clause 1.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for his very helpful explanation. Just to be sure, will he confirm that if I receive communications from constituents of the five absentee Sinn Fein Members—and, indeed, of any other Members of this House who take their seats—and I make representations or write to a Minister, the Director of Public Prosecutions or a senior Government official, that will not be caught by the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. She would not be affected by the Bill as she would be behaving as a Member of Parliament and not engaging in the course of a business. The payment she receives as a Member of Parliament is not regarded as payment for these purposes, and she can undertake all her normal activities. The same is true for the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, because shadow Ministers and Members may raise any issues they wish. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) can represent not only her constituents but anybody she likes in her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, and is in no way constrained from doing so.

[Mr Thomas]

The Leader of the House has been at his most reasonable in the past few minutes, but he has not yet touched on how we ended up in this position. I asked whether he would set out who was consulted—were the House authorities consulted before the Bill was published? I asked, and I gently ask again, whether he would accept that one lesson of this episode and this Bill might be that pre-legislative scrutiny would have been helpful?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows from our previous conversation that we talked to the House authorities about parliamentary privilege. The implication of what he says is that the Bill was in a sense deficient because Members of Parliament were caught, but they were not. In the original Bill, Members of Parliament were exempt by virtue of the fact that they were engaged in a public duty as office holders, not in the course of a business. To that extent, we included provisions intended to give additional reassurance, but that simply muddied the waters and it was simpler to do it in the way that we, together with the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, accepted. We accepted an amendment in Committee, and all I am doing today—I hope—is making it clear that the combination of those amendments in Committee and the amendments now being considered respects the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee and protects the rights of this House in relation to privilege. It also entirely protects the position of Members of Parliament who are undertaking their duties, however they construe them. On that basis, I hope Members will support Government amendments 28 and 29.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being utterly clear about the intention of this Bill, which is that Members of Parliament and Members of the other place are not intended to be included in the provisions of the Bill. He has listened and read the report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and the Standards and Privileges Committee of this House, and has understood the concerns raised. I emphasise the importance of removing the second paragraph in schedule 1, subject to amendment 29, because were it to remain it would have the effect of narrowing the exemption to an absurd degree. That is why it is important to remove it; it is not only redundant but would be highly damaging because it would suggest that what is not excluded by the clause would implicitly be included under the Bill. I will not press new clause 1 to a vote, because the Leader of the House is dealing with these matters in an exemplary manner, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Duty to apply a code of conduct

‘(1) The Registrar shall, after wide consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, prepare a code of conduct with which all registered persons will be required to comply, and may produce revised codes from time to time.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay any professional lobbying code of conduct before Parliament.

(3) Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.

(4) An organisation or person included on the register which contravenes the provisions of the code of conduct shall be liable to civil penalties as set out in section 14.’.—(Mr Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Graham Allen; Ministers must wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to colleagues for the two speeches on this group of amendments.

Let me start with new clause 4, moved by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). The proposed new clause would require the registrar, after consultation with stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to produce a code with which all registered persons must comply or face a civil penalty. We are talking about a statutory code with a requirement for a penalty if it is not complied with. The exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) amply illustrated that there is scant detail about what such a code would contain, so the amendments reveal that the Opposition intend to create not only a register of lobbyists but a full-blown general regulator of the industry. While the Government are seeking to shine the light of transparency on the key issues in lobbying and the impact on key decision makers, the Opposition are bent on regulating the lobbying industry as a whole. They would regulate the behaviour of the huge number of individuals and organisations that would be captured by the definition of professional lobbying that they suggested in Committee.

The Government recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct and we are confident that that will continue. Those codes promote the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. The voluntary, self-regulated codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, but their translation into statute is hardly sensible—nor is it feasible. The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions illustrates clearly that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying are effectively unworkable and unenforceable.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I was going to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, so let me give him an example and then I will let him intervene.

The consequence of seeking to regulate the whole industry is that in Congress the point has been reached at which there is an 894-page manual. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that we should go down that path, having a similar relationship between the lobbying industry and this Parliament to that in Congress?

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman is now making a different point from that made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) in Committee. She argued that there were plenty of examples of statutory codes of conduct that were not working. The right hon. Gentleman is making a different point and I would gently suggest to him that the experience from Canada and Australia, where statutory codes of conduct exist, suggests that such codes can be made to work perfectly effectively.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not agree. The consequence of large-scale statutory codes is considerable expenditure.

Let us consider the simple questions to which we have no answers. The new clause states only that there should not be inappropriate financial relationships; the hon. Gentleman does not tell us what those inappropriate relationships are or explain why they are not already prohibited by instruments such as parliamentarians’ codes of conduct, which we discussed earlier, or laws on bribery and corruption. How would the provisions of the code be enforced? What resources would the registrar require to monitor and enforce compliance, particularly if seeking to enforce compliance against imprecise, vague and wide-ranging—understandably so, as far as the voluntary code is concerned—principles and prescriptions? Trying to set up such a structure of enforcement in relation to such a wide-ranging code for such a large number of people is completely unsustainable. Who would foot the bill? The bill for the measures in Canada is equivalent to £3 million and this proposal would clearly cost much more. In any case, the Canadians go about things in a different way from us. It is not a case of adopting what they do, because they do not take our approach. We set out, through the transparency of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries, to approach the issue in a completely different fashion.

We are not trying to set up a register that controls what the lobbying industry does. Our approach recognises that lobbyists have a job to do. They are engaged in a self-regulatory structure. We are not trying to introduce a bureaucratic monster to oversee all that. We are clear that the key decision makers should be transparent about who they are seeing, and that—as the Bill would now ensure—where it is not transparent, in that they are meeting someone who is representing, as it were, their own interests, where they meet consultant lobbyists, those consultant lobbyists, through the register, are required to disclose who their clients are.

I am afraid that new clause 4, and much of what we heard from those on the Labour Front Bench and from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), suggests that either they are not clear about what problem they are trying to address or they are simply trying to create a bureaucracy. We are not in that business. They are trying to create something that the Government have been very clear we do not want to create. We believe in transparency. We do not believe in the large-scale regulation that they are pursuing.

[Simon Hughes]

Like my right hon. Friend, I am keen that we do not have some great bureaucratic invention to deal with this issue. There is one thing I do not understand, however. If a public relations company that has 500 clients comes to speak to my right hon. Friend or a Secretary of State or a permanent secretary, what would be the difficulty in making it a requirement that the company makes it clear which client it is coming to speak on behalf of? Otherwise, one does not get very much further by just knowing which company is making the representation.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend, characteristically, makes a better point than those on the Opposition Front Bench did. It is consistent with the approach that we are taking, but I respectfully suggest that we should not include such a requirement in the Bill, as amendment 100 seeks to do, because the register is not the place where those meetings are recorded. They are recorded in ministerial diaries. The issue is getting transparency in ministerial diaries.

We are the first Government to publish details of those meetings and other transparent relationships. We have extended the scope of that, not only in lobbying but in relation to the media; we publish that information. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), picking up the work undertaken by his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is engaged in ensuring that information provided by Departments provides sufficient detail about the subject of meetings. If one has the register, which discloses who the consultant lobbyist is and their clients, and Ministers’ diaries, which are clear about the purpose of a meeting, one should be able to see the character of the relationship —who is lobbying whom, and for what.

[Simon Hughes]

I completely understand that, and I commend the Government, as my right hon. Friend knows, for the change in the rules about the publication of diaries, which is very welcome. May I ask him a practical question, which may answer my concerns and those of others? What will be the intended delay between the meeting and the diary publication or the appearance in the register? People often need that knowledge soon after the event—not a long time after, when it may be too late to be relevant.

[Mr Lansley]

We have already made a commitment that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries for each quarter would be published by the end of the subsequent quarter.

[Mr Thomas]

Is not the point about Ministers’ diaries that so few consultant lobbyists actually go to meet Ministers directly? Making a great virtue of the publication of Ministers’ diaries is therefore a complete red herring.

[Mr Lansley]

That brings us to some of the other amendments. We are clear that the key decision makers are the gap in terms of transparency. We want to be clear whom the key decision makers are seeing. There are plenty of amendments on that subject in the next group, so I will not answer that point. It would of course be possible to extend that to lots of other groups, but we should consider the bureaucracy that would be created by doing so, by imagining 5,000 senior civil servants all publishing their diaries.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me make some progress, then I will give way again. There are quite a number of amendments in the group and I want to address each of them briefly.

New clause 6 requires that the registrar provide an annual report to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The Chair of the Committee did not, I think, refer to new clause 6, and I am not aware that the Committee made such a proposal. If the Committee wants to call the registrar to give evidence to it on an annual basis, it is quite within its rights to do so, and the Government would be happy to support that, but we do not believe it is appropriate to set this down as a statutory requirement.

Opposition amendment 84 requires the Minister to consult the PCRC before dismissing the registrar—another interesting proposal, but I am not sure that the amendment adds anything of substance to the Bill. In essence, this is part of the same issue as the independence of the registrar, which I believe is already made clear in the wording of the Bill. The registrar will be independent of the lobbying industry and the Government and will have a clear remit to operate independently of both. The Minister will be able to dismiss the registrar only when he or she is satisfied that the registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of his or her office, and any decision by the Minster could be challenged in the usual way via judicial review.

Opposition amendment 85 removes the requirement that lobbyists who have no business address must register their private residence. I can understand the concern to protect the privacy of individuals on the register, especially given the more onerous and invasive reporting requirements proposed elsewhere by the Opposition, but I am not sure that the removal of the requirement to register an address is a helpful one. A registered address is critical if the registrar is successfully to issue information notices, investigate compliance, and serve penalty notices. The great majority of consultant lobbyists will have one or more dedicated business addresses, so no issue will arise. The handful of individual consultant lobbyists who have no separate business address—I recognise that there is no requirement to register for those who do not meet the threshold of undertaking a business that is VAT-registered—can choose to obtain such an address and use that or they can submit their personal residential address. I therefore do not agree that this step is a wise one.

Given the Opposition’s concern about privacy, do they really want to require, as proposed by their amendment 86, that every organisation that lobbies must declare the names of all members of staff employed? Let us take an example. Given the way in which other Opposition amendments would apply, if an academic were engaged in contact with a Minister in pursuance of a subject on which they had undertaken research, the Opposition’s definition—not ours—would require that to be registered, whereas we would say that that was incidental and that the academic was not engaged mainly in lobbying activity. The Opposition would say that it should be included and, by extension, the names of everybody who works for the university should be entered in the register. That is unrealistic and makes no sense.

Amendments 87, 89 and 90 would amend the information requirements outlined in clause 4 to require that lobbyists also disclose financial information. Amendment 100, as I mentioned earlier, would alter the information requirements outlined in clause 4. We have been very clear that the objective of the register is the identification of the interests that are being represented by consultant lobbying firms. Lobbyists should therefore be required to disclose their clients. We are not persuaded that the burden of providing further information that would be imposed on the industry and the regulator is justified by the limited insight that it would provide. One can readily envisage the administrative nightmare that would result from trying to determine the costs of lobbying activity, especially where this had to be disaggregated from wider business activities. Requiring the disclosure of financial information relating to lobbying activity is not, in our view, proportionate to the problem identified.

Amendment 92 makes it explicit that the registrar may publish the register in written form. I can assure the Opposition that this is already implicit in 7(2), which states that the register may publish the register

“in such other form or forms as the Registrar thinks appropriate.”

The registrar can do whatever is necessary, including publishing the register in written form.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for allowing me to intervene, even at this stage. Before he concludes his comments rejecting amendment 100, may I remind him of his opening remarks in response to this group of clauses? He said that the Government intend to shine the light of transparency—a great phrase—on lobbying, and we say, “Hear, hear” to that, but I cannot understand his justification for not requiring the subject matter of a meeting to be registered. He suggested that that is publication of the diaries of Ministers and permanent secretaries, but the Leader of the House will know better than any of us that the definition of permanent secretary includes the DPP, the chief medical officer and the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Are they obliged to publish their diaries?

[Mr Lansley]

The point I was making is that the register that the Bill establishes is not where meetings will be listed. Meetings will be listed in the diary of the Minister or the permanent secretary. Consequently, in so far as it is appropriate for a meeting’s character to be disclosed, it will be disclosed in the ministerial diaries. To try to construct in the Bill the idea that the subject of meetings will be disclosed in the register would be to misunderstand what the register does. The register discloses the clients of consultant lobbyists, not the subjects on which they are lobbying.

[Mark Durkan]

The Leader of the House has still not made any convincing case for why the register should not specify the topic of the lobbying. The idea of relying solely on ministerial diaries, with people having to look up the register and then the diaries on the basis that they already have a suspicion, clearly imposes more difficulty. If this is meant to be about transparency in lobbying, why cannot there be transparency in the register?

[Mr Lansley]

With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my previous answer. Consultant lobbyists disclose in the register who their clients are. The diaries of Ministers and permanent secretaries disclose who they meet. If the Secretary of State for Transport meets British Airways, it is transparent that British Airways is representing its interests. However, if the XYZ airline is represented by a consultant lobbyist, the register will disclose that the airline is the client of that lobbyist, and it will be transparent through the Minister’s diary that he or she has met that lobbyist and, as a consequence, it will be clear who they are meeting. The issue is not whether there is transparency but the mechanism by which transparency is delivered. It is delivered through the publication of Ministers’ diaries, and the gap in transparency that we have identified, and which the Bill remedies, is the gap in understanding, if Ministers or permanent secretaries meet consultant lobbyists, who their clients are.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I have answered that question.

Amendment 93, tabled by the Opposition, would remove clause 10. I must confess that I am still bemused. We made it quite clear in Committee that the effect of doing so would be that in response to an information notice a person would not be required to provide any self-incriminating information, including in relation to any offence committed in relation to the register itself. The amendment would entirely undermine the enforcement regime relating to the register.

The Opposition’s amendments 94, 95 and 96 would make it an offence for consultant lobbyists to report misleading information. Although the intention behind the amendments is undoubtedly sound, I do not believe that they would have a substantive effect, as in order to be misleading the information must be either inaccurate or incomplete, and that is already covered by the clause.

The Government’s amendments in this group include amendment 31, which will allow the registrar to make direct payments to staff who have been seconded to support the office holder in addition to or instead of payments being made to the Minister or other person who seconded staff to the registrar. The registrar can also make payments to Ministers or other persons who supply accommodation or other services to the registrar under the general provision to make arrangements set out in paragraph 8(1)(b) of schedule 2.

Clause 4(3) outlines the client information that should be included in each register entry. Amendment 17 clarifies that if the registered consultant lobbyist has not engaged in lobbying or been paid to engage in lobbying during that quarter, its register entry for that quarter will contain a statement to that effect, as set out in clause 5(5), in lieu of any client information.

Amendments 18 and 19 will ensure the clarity and consistency of references to the periods for which consultant lobbyists are obliged to provide information. In the existing Bill, the three-month period prior to their initial registration about which consultant lobbyists must provide information in their register entry is called the “relevant pre-registration period”. This amendment changes the references to that phrase in clause 4 to the phrase “pre-registration quarter”, reflecting the references to the quarters for which client information is required after registration and ensuring consistency across the Bill. I hope that is clear.

Amendment 20 will ensure that the parameters of the pre-registration quarter are unambiguously defined as the three months ending on the date on which the person applies to be registered. The amendment changes the definition of the relevant pre-registration quarter period from the period of three months preceding the application date to the period of three months ending on the application date.

Amendments 21 and 22 will make it clear that register entries must include the names of the person or persons on whose behalf lobbying is undertaken, reflecting the reality that consultant lobbyists are likely to be engaged by more than one person during a quarter, and ensures consistency across the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 23 clarifies the registrar's duty to update the register in accordance with the information returns submitted by consultant lobbyists by removing the unnecessary reference to “receiving the information return” which is covered in the following sub-paragraph.

Amendment 24 makes clear the separation of what the registrar is required to do, and what it may do. The registrar must publish the register in accordance with requirements set out in section 6. The registrar may also publish entries in respect of persons who were but are no longer entered in the register, but this is not a subset of its requirements under section 6.

Amendment 25 makes it clear that it is an offence for a “registered” person to carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they have submitted incomplete information to the registrar. This puts beyond any shadow of a doubt the class of person that is caught by this provision.

Amendment 26 will clarify that a person guilty of an offence relating to the register is liable to a fine, whether they are summarily convicted or are convicted on indictment. If convicted in a Crown court, the fine will be unlimited. If convicted in a magistrates court in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum. If convicted in a magistrates court in England or Wales before the coming into force of section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum; if convicted after the coming into force of that Act, which removes the statutory maximum in England and Wales, the fine will be unlimited.

Amendment 27 further clarifies that an appeal against an information notice or the notice or imposition of a penalty can be heard either by the first tier tribunal or, if so determined by or under the tribunal procedure rules, the upper tribunal.

When the time comes, I would welcome the opportunity to move the Government amendments standing in my name.

[Mr Thomas]

We have had a very good debate on these amendments but, sadly, what has become clear is that whenever meaningful transparency has been suggested, the Leader of the House has cited the danger of a huge level of bureaucracy as the reason real transparency cannot be achieved. This Bill is badly titled; instead of the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, it would be better and more accurate to describe it as a little bit of transparency on a little bit of lobbying Bill.

The Leader of the House did not revert to the attempt made by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who suggested that there were plenty of examples of countries around the world that had statutory codes of conduct that suggested that such codes were unworkable. The one effort that the right hon. Gentleman made was to cite the American political system as being a reason that a statutory code of conduct would not work here. Not even the scale of incompetence that the coalition parties are managing to achieve in government comes close to the scale of dysfunctionality in the American political system at the moment. It is not a meaningful comparison to cite the American code of conduct; more sensible would have been to point to the examples of Australia and Canada, as I sought to do. Experience there does show that a statutory code of conduct can be made workable and enforceable, and could help to achieve the objective of delivering real transparency when lobbyists meet Ministers and indeed members of the House of Commons. A clear, basic code of conduct would avoid confusion over which voluntary register was the best one. It would offer clarity to the House and, indeed, to those in Government about the standards expected and required by those lobbying. I urge the Government to accept, even at this late stage, the benefit of having a code of conduct, even for the tiny number of lobbyists their Bill will cover.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), in a very well-judged speech, highlighted the number of loopholes that exist in the Bill. He cited the balance of evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, suggesting that further information should be included in the register, including the scale of financial information, the subject matter of the lobbying, and the purpose of the lobbying activity. He noted that representations for that additional information had come to the Committee from a range of organisations as diverse as Spinwatch all the way through to the Royal College of Nursing.

Our amendments sought to inject that greater level of information and transparency into the process. I deeply regret that even at this late stage Ministers are not willing to consider even their own versions of the amendments. I therefore seek the opportunity to press the new clause to a vote and urge all Members of the House to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

I would not want to deny the hon. Gentleman—a possible future Deputy Speaker of the House—that privilege. I believe that he is one of the candidates. It is fascinating to get these invitations. One from an hon. Lady said, “Vote for me and you won’t have to put up with me on the Benches. I will be silenced.” Therefore, we are voting for the one we most want to silence as a Deputy Speaker and we think is most loathsome. It is a hard task, because we have a rich choice.

We were waiting for the Bill. We were promised it on 10 March 2010. This was going to be the great crusading Parliament against lobbying. This was going to be the new scandal. Nothing happened: comatose for nearly three years. Suddenly there was a scandal on the way and the Government decided to act. The Bill was conceived in haste. It was written in fear and in malice. The legislative process has been conducted with incompetence. These modest amendments will make some improvements but it will be one of the many Bills that will go through the House. We are very poor at legislating.

We should look at the history. During the 13 years of the Labour Government, 75 Bills went through all their stages and were never put into practice. A permanent secretary has that figure. We have this disease. If we see a problem, what do we do? Dogs bark, children cry, politicians legislate. This is a piece of utterly futile legislation. It does not deal with the problem. It misses 97% of the problem but it takes a spiteful side-swipe at bodies that are blameless such as charities and trade unions. The Government are trying to save corporate lobbyists, who are doing the greatest damage, from the bureaucracy, and they have hit out at people who are doing no damage whatever. They are reducing bureaucracy for one and increasing needlessly bureaucracy for the other. This is an awful Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

As has been demonstrated, the effect of new clause 7 and the other amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) would be to bring into the register of lobbyists not just consultant lobbyists but all those who are in-house lobbyists. She knows that the approach we have taken is not to seek to create a register of everyone who engages in lobbying, which would be a very long list, but to ensure that the details of the meetings of the key decision makers—Ministers and permanent secretaries—are published and by extension we understand who is lobbying whom as far as the key decision makers are concerned. She rather shot her own fox by talking about the big six energy firms. The reason that earlier this week The Independent was able to run the story about the number of times that Ministers have met representatives of the big six energy firms is that we as a Government for the first time have published details of Ministers’ diaries. Putting the names of the big six energy firms in a register of lobbyists adds no information: we know who they are; we know on whose behalf they are lobbying; and we now know—as a result of this Government, not the previous Government—when they are meeting the key decision makers. That is clear. In this Bill we are extending transparency and addressing the key failing, and we are doing so not through having a large list of the kind the Opposition amendments would create.

New clause 7 proposes exceptions to the definition of those who are treated as consultant lobbyists. It may be of comfort to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and the Opposition that there are some sensible exclusions from their concept of lobbying, but all those sensible exclusions are already provided for in the Bill. Some of the proposed exclusions are less sensible, however. In their explanation for amendment 70, the Opposition say that they seek to remove the reasonable requirement that consultant lobbyists must be VAT-registered, which is aimed at protecting small businesses engaged in consultant lobbying, and to insert in its place a requirement that the lobbyist be a

“sole trader or company, or employee of such a person”.

The amendment therefore excludes charities, partnerships and any other type of body a lobbyist might be. The Opposition would therefore reduce the effectiveness of the register in relation to consultant lobbyists.

The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said that we took a long time in responding to its report. That was because it was arguing for this large-scale regulatory structure for lobbying. We looked carefully over a substantial period of time at whether satisfactory definitions could be achieved, and they cannot. We would end up with very large-scale registers that tell us very little that is new.

Opposition amendments 73 to 76 and 83 would alter the definition in clause 2 with the intention of extending the scope of the register to those who lobby each of the many categories of people, including special advisers, senior civil servants, Members of either House of Parliament, parliamentary staff and non-departmental public bodies.

Amendment 97, tabled by members of the Select Committee, offered a more limited expansion of the scope, aimed at including special advisers, the senior civil service and, in the case of amendment 98, parliamentarians. Amendment 116, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), would extend the scope to special advisers.

The register is designed to complement the existing Government transparency regime whereby Ministers and permanent secretaries proactively publish details of their meetings with external organisations. It is intended to focus on communications with the key decisions makers in Government, not on the large-scale surrounds of people who are intermediaries. There is a question as to the value of increasing the scope of the ministerial transparency regime. Is there really value in collecting and publishing data on every meeting of every one of almost 5,000 senior civil servants?

Amendment 71 would add the term “electronic” to the concept of written communications. I can assure the House that such communications—including a fax, an e-mail, a text message, and even a personal tweet or BlackBerry Messenger conversation—are already currently captured by the definition of communications.

Turning to European legislation, amendment 72 would not be effective in the terms in which it is drafted. We do not make European legislation, but lobbying in relation to it or lobbying the policy of the Government in relation to it would be captured.

There is one Government amendment in this group: amendment 30. It provides that a person does not fall within the scope of the definition of consultant lobbyist if they carry out a mainly non-lobbying business and any consultant lobbying communication they make is incidental to those activities. Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 defines non-lobbying activities as any activities other than the making of communications about policy, legislation or contracts and tenders and so forth to any Executive, including the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, UK local government, any national Government, and any institution of the EU. This amendment will clarify that the reference to the lobbying of the Northern Ireland Executive in paragraph 3 includes the lobbying both of Ministers and their Departments. When the time comes, I shall wish to move that amendment on behalf of the Government, but I now give the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central a moment to respond.

[Chi Onwurah]

Given this Government’s clear lack of understanding of lobbying activity, the new clause will not improve the Bill substantially and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House would give us the business for when we return after the conference recess.

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

The business for the week commencing 7 October will be as follows:

Monday 7 October—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 8 October—Remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 1).

Wednesday 9 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.

Thursday 10 October—Debate on a motion relating to free school meals, followed by a general debate on funding for local authorities. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The business for the week commencing 14 October will include:

Monday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 15 October—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

Wednesday 16 October—Opposition Day [7th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

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

Friday 18 October—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 and 17 October will be:

Thursday 10 October—Debate on the third report of the Environmental Audit Committee on wildlife crime, followed by debate on the first report of the Work and Pensions Committee on “Can the Work programme work for all user groups?”.

Thursday 17 October—Debate on the sixth report of the Transport Committee on the Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group, followed by debate on the eighth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the contamination of beef products.

[Ms Eagle]

We are always grateful to the Doorkeepers for looking after us. May I take the opportunity to wish Bill Perkiss, who has served as a Doorkeeper for 26 years, a long and very happy and retirement? It is well deserved.

The House has spent this week dismantling the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. Members in all parts of the House have lined up to condemn the Bill as a sop to vested interests and a sinister gag on free speech. On Tuesday, the Government caved in to pressure and agreed to an unspecified concession on clause 26. May I ask the Leader of the House whether that will include amendments to schedule 3? Does he not realise that the rest of part 2 is riddled with problems as well?

Given that the Leader of the House has just announced that the Bill will return for its Report stage on the first day following the recess, will he tell us how on earth we are expected to judge any amendments that the Government may table? When does he intend to publish any new amendments, and whom will he consult? Does he not agree that, in order to give the House time to consider the changes to clause 26 and to allow the views of charities, campaigners and his own regulator on the problems with the rest of part 2 to be heard, he should delay Report stage?

Some of the more generous critics of this mess of a Bill on the Government’s own Benches have suggested that the sinister gag on charities and campaigners might just be an innocent drafting mistake. I usually appreciate optimism, but I think that is taking it a bit too far. The reality is that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was spot on when he said that part 2 would “chill free speech”, and was right to vote against it along with nine of his Conservative colleagues. What a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister, who I am told cooked up the Bill at a “high-level meeting” with the Prime Minister, was mysteriously absent from the vote. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether that was because the Deputy Prime Minister could not be bothered to turn up and vote, or because he was ashamed of his own authoritarian Bill?

We must be clear. The Bill is a crude and cynical attempt by the Government to shut up their many critics in the run-up to the next general election. However, they have been found out. Is it not time that they listened to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and went back to the drawing board?

This week, the Liberal Democrats have been left to do the Tories’ dirty work on the gagging Bill. In fact, they have become the Bill’s most fulsome defenders. Such has been their enthusiasm for this gag on free speech that I am prompted to suggest that they invest in a dictionary, so that they can look up the meaning of the words “liberal” and “democrat”.

I never cease to be amazed by the sheer effrontery of the Liberal Democrats. This week the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), unveiled an election promise to repeal secret courts legislation. He hoped no one would remember that it had only got on to the statute book, a few months earlier, with Liberal Democrat support. Who do they think they are kidding? In that dictionary, they might also want to look under C for consistency, and then move down the page and check out the meaning of “cynical”. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) used an interview with one of the weekend papers to announce that she was in despair over her own party.

This week, the Education Secretary underlined just how callous the Government are when he asserted that those who turn to food banks have only themselves to blame. The Transport Secretary promptly agreed with him, and the Prime Minister refused to disassociate himself from the remarks during Prime Minister’s Question Time. How out of touch can this Government be? It is a scandal that since they came to power, one third of a million more people have had to use food banks, and all this Government can do is berate them for it.

The Chancellor used the phrase “living standards” 12 times in a speech that he gave earlier in the week. He can say it all he likes, but it will not make up for the fact that it is his squeeze on living standards that means that people cannot feed themselves and their families by the end of the month. Prices have risen faster than wages in all but one of the 39 months that this Government have been in power, and all they have done is give tax cuts to millionaires and defend the privileged few. So will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on how we can build a recovery for all in an economy that works for working people?

As we all leave and head off to our party conferences, I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his unprecedented outburst of realism on his radio phone-in show this morning. He announced that it was

“unlikely that at the next general election we are going to get an outright majority”.

I think he just might be right about that one.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House and join her in wishing Bill Perkiss a very happy retirement. We very much appreciate the way in which the Doorkeepers look after the Members of this House and wish him well.

The hon. Lady asked only two questions. One was in relation to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. We have no intention of delaying Report stage. It was perfectly evident in the course of this week that the Opposition’s approach to the Bill was to talk on early groups of amendments at inordinate and absurd length in order to try to prevent scrutiny of later groups. [Interruption.] Well, we will make sure that the Bill is scrutinised properly.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House made it very clear on Tuesday that we will table an amendment on Report. We will publish it on or before 1 October and its effect is confined to clause 26 in principle, which is to ensure that for those who are undertaking expenditure for electoral purposes the substance of the test will be the same as in 2010. We have made it clear that it has never been our intention to change the substance of the test of what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes.

We are very clear, however, that in relation to schedule 3 and other parts of the Bill we will change the activities that will be controlled as part of controlled expenditure. We will bring down the limit, and rightly so. We will disaggregate that constituency limit, so as to make the regulation of non-party campaigning expenditure more comparable to the regulation of party expenditure and to make it apply at the constituency level as well. If I can publish the amendment earlier and consult with others, I will certainly set out to do so.

While I am on the Bill and Report stage in our first week back, as I announced, I continue to await a reply from the Leader of the Opposition to a letter that I sent two months ago asking him whether he wished to use the Bill as a vehicle for giving effect to his proposals to give members of trade unions a deliberate choice about their participation in political funds. Not only have I had no reply, but it is perfectly evident from watching the Leader of the Opposition’s rather lamentable performance in Bournemouth that the trade unions are not going to let him implement the changes to the political fund and its operation that he announced earlier in the summer. They will not let him do it. He and the Labour party have one route to make sure those changes happen and to entrench them: it is to use the Bill on Report, and it is not too late for them to table amendments on Report that would have that effect. I call on them to do so.

The shadow Leader of the House made some remarks about the recovery. Let me make it clear that it is this Government who inherited the most appalling deficit—the biggest annual deficit of any developed country. Let us remember that that recession was a reduction in gross domestic product of 7.2%. The idea that we could recover from such a deep recession and resolve such appalling debt problems—not only Government debt, but consumer debt—without implications for people’s living standards over the short term is nonsense. We are minimising those implications and, as a Government committed to fairness, ensuring that in the process those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, not least through our changes to the personal tax allowance, which mean that people in work and on low earnings have seen their tax burden reduced, with 2.7 million people taken out of income tax altogether. The Labour party never includes that in the figures it uses.

The most important thing is for people to have security through employment. We now have the lowest number of workless households we have seen and 1.4 million more private sector jobs. That is the basis upon which people will feel the benefits of this recovery in the years ahead.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a serious incident occurred on the Dartford crossing last Friday and led to its being closed for seven hours, which brought home how dependent the whole economy of the south-east is on that one piece of infrastructure. As we are considering bringing forward proposals for a new crossing in the lower Thames, may we have a debate so that we can discuss the optimum solution for the whole economy of the south-east?

[Mr Lansley]

I am indeed aware of the incident. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, I remember when a further Dartford crossing was being contemplated back in 1985-86, and at the time it was considered that the dangers of a bridge being closed because of high winds were mitigated by the fact that there were tunnels. We hoped never to encounter a situation in which both the tunnels and the bridge were closed, but we have, so to that extent this is an important issue. I cannot at this point promise a debate, but I will encourage my colleagues at the Department for Transport to see what possibilities there are for involving the House in further discussions about those prospects.

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

A year ago many Remploy factories were closed and the Government promised extra help for those disabled workers. Sadly, many of them are still unemployed. May we have a statement on why that promised help has failed so many?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has reported to the House on a number of occasions about this. He will know that the Remploy board considered all bids for the business. It has identified a preferred bidder for viable automotive factories but has not concluded that other bids were viable. Around two thirds of former Remploy workers who are accessing the support available to them are now either in work or undertaking activities aimed at getting them closer to work. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to keep the House fully informed.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the best way to achieve a living wage? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the best way to do that is either by reintroducing the 10p tax rate on earnings up to £12,500 or by taking those earning the minimum wage out of tax altogether?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. We want to give people not only security, but good prospects and rising living standards. That is what we are aiming for and what turning the corner in the economy, which we are doing, is all about. We want to sustain the recovery, which means sticking to the policies that the Government have set out, but included in that, as he rightly says, is ensuring that those on low wages do not have to pay tax. That is where we have made such a success. Someone working 35 hours a week on the minimum wage will have seen their income tax take halved, which is very important.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Later today the House will debate the critical subject of child protection for the second time in 12 months, but I am led to understand that for the second time in 12 months the Minister responsible for child protection will not be responding to the debate, and neither will any Minister from the lead Department responsible for that important area. Will the Leader of the House look into the matter to see whether the Department for Education has abandoned its responsibilities to children? If not, will he clarify for the House how we can hold the Minister responsible to account for this most important of issues?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She knows that Ministers take child protection extremely seriously, which is why, not least, the Home Secretary has supported the development of work to combat child exploitation and crimes against children. Ministers will respond to and participate in the debate this afternoon. Ministers take these issues extremely seriously, as does the House.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the independence of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? This is not an attack on IPSA, but I have established from responses to parliamentary questions that this year IPSA has already had 13 meetings with Ministers, eight of them in June and July, as well as seven meetings with Treasury officials. On 19 July, the chair and chief executive of IPSA met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a meeting at which Treasury officials were also present. The chief executive informed me in a written answer:

“I do not intend to provide further details of these meetings as to do so may inhibit free and frank discussions in the future.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 556W.]

Mr Speaker, you chaired a meeting last week at which it was let slip that the Leader of the House had that very day had a meeting with the chair of IPSA. Would the Leader of the House care to put on record what that discussion was about?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think I let it slip; I made it very clear that I had had that meeting, simply because it was the first time that I had met the board of IPSA. I did that on the same day and I made it clear to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that I had met the board, not least because, in the context of the discussion that we had in the Speaker’s Committee, I did not want it to be thought that the points I had made to the board had not been made. I wanted to make it clear that I had made those points, which related to the board’s consultation on pay and pensions.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

We heard on Tuesday an announcement from the Secretary of State for Health of additional funding for some hospitals—mainly in the south, I might add. Other hospitals did not get any extra funding, however, even though hospitals such as Whiston, which serves my constituency, has seen a 25% increase in emergency attendances. There are similar pressures at Warrington and Halton hospital, which also serves my constituency. May we have a debate on this matter? The Secretary of State did not explain himself on Tuesday, and it would be interesting to find out why those hospitals did not get funding while others did.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which are respectively responsible for the commissioning and regulation of provider trusts, jointly took a view on the allocation to individual trusts of the additional funding to meet winter pressures. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him to inform him of the criteria that were applied when those trusts were selected.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Whole-life sentences are quite rare in this country, and they are reserved for the most dangerous prisoners. May we have a debate on the ability of prisoners on whole-life tariffs to challenge their sentences, following a recent ruling by European judges that whole-life sentences contravened prisoners’ human rights?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government do not agree with the view that human rights are contravened in that way. There are proper measures in place to review whole-life tariffs, but I will of course raise his point with the Lord Chancellor in the first instance. I will invite the Lord Chancellor to respond to my hon. Friend about how we will approach that judgment.

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

I agree with the Leader of the House that the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but is he aware that young people in my constituency and up and down the country are unemployed and desperate for a job and the chance of a good way of life? They face intense competition from other young people in Europe who come here because they think there is a better chance of finding a job here. We have to have a debate on what are we are going to do for the 1 million unemployed young people who need a chance to have a good life.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that we agree that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Indeed, in this financial year, the top 1% by earnings will contribute nearly 30% of income tax. Equally, we probably agree that we want to see young people in employment. It is vital for them and for our economy that those young people should have education, training and employment and that they do not fail to acquire the habit of employment. The fact that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is at its lowest for a decade is helpful, as is the fact that more than 1 million apprenticeships and 100,000 work experience placements have been created since the election. We are not in the least complacent about this, however. About 900,000 young people are unemployed, and we want to reduce that figure.

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

As my right hon. Friend may be aware, my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has close links with Gibraltar. Indeed, yesterday was national Gibraltar day. I am delighted to support the campaign to give that gallant royal naval port, which has played such a significant role in the defence of Britain over the past 300 years, the George Cross—similar to the award to Malta in 1942—to demonstrate the House’s support for Gibraltar during these difficult times with the Spanish Government. May we please have a debate on that?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall what the Prime Minister had to say by way of expressing to the people of Gibraltar our very strong message of support, and the House will be pleased that a distinguished group of parliamentarians were with Gibraltar on its national day to express our support as a House. I am aware of the recent launch of a campaign for Gibraltar to be awarded the George Cross. As my hon. Friend knows, all reasonable cases for gallantry awards are given careful consideration.

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

The Government plan to close the North Liverpool community justice centre, despite its success in bringing down crime. A short consultation was held over the summer. May we have a statement on that?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady might be interested to know that on the Tuesday that we return after the conference recess, the Ministry of Justice will be responding to questions. I shall draw the Department’s attention to the point that she has made—it might be able to respond in the meantime—but that might otherwise be an opportunity for her to raise that important constituency issue.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In 2007, the High Court rejected a bid from a pupil to be allowed to wear her niqab in class. The staff powerfully argued that they needed to see her face to see whether she was paying attention, engaged in her work or distressed. Subsequent to that ruling, the Department for Education issued guidelines permitting schools and colleges to insist that they be able to see pupils’ faces at all times, and this week Birmingham Metropolitan college did just that. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Department for Education to reissue its guidance so that the public can see that Birmingham Metropolitan college has acted entirely within the rules and applied what most people in this country would regard as a common-sense policy with regard to the visibility of students?

[Mr Speaker]

I trust we can have a statement or a debate on the matter as well.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will raise the issue with the Department for Education, although I understand from his question that he supports the position that the Department has taken hitherto. I am sure it will be grateful for that. Indeed, that position is much in keeping with a general principle that head teachers responsible for education within colleges and schools should be able to make such decisions due to the effect on their institutions.

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

When Fenton magistrates court closed, the building that housed it—the former Fenton town hall—was put up for sale by the Ministry of Justice, yet Fenton town hall was never bought by the Ministry or the Government, who never paid any rent for it, and the Ministry is seeking to profit from the sale of the building. May we have a debate in Government time on buildings such as Fenton town hall being put up for sale when no money was ever paid, in the hope that we achieve the transfer of the building back to the community from which it came?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the case that he raises, although I will ask the Ministry of Justice to consider the points he has made. Generally speaking, the legislative steps taken by the Government to empower local people and local communities to identify properties of community value and to be able to intervene to secure them for community purposes have been much welcomed.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Two months ago in the Chamber, I raised the case of Nadejah Williams, a young woman with a rare form of colon cancer who had been refused life-saving CyberKnife treatment by NHS England. Last night, Nadejah was told the good news that NHS England had changed its mind and she can now be treated with Mount Vernon’s CyberKnife system. I thank Andy Lines from the Daily Mirror for doggedly pursuing her case and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for intervening personally and making NHS England see sense.

May we have a debate on why six months of trauma and three appeals by Nadejah’s specialists occurred before that young woman was allowed her CyberKnife treatment, thereby ensuring that others do not suffer what can be critical delays to their treatment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure the House will appreciate how she has pursued that case, and share her hope that successful pursuit of that treatment will be of great benefit to Ms Williams. I cannot promise a debate, but it is important for the NHS to be able to pursue innovative treatments. CyberKnife—a brand name—is a form of interventional radiotherapy, and other forms of interventional radiotherapy were agreed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to be effective. From my experience in these matters I know that, along with others, CyberKnife was increasingly being adopted across the NHS, and rightly so.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Real wages for men have dropped in Blaenau Gwent by £30 a week. May we have a debate in Government time on how the Government’s two-nation policies have failed so many parts of the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

What is clear is that the coalition Government are pursuing what I regard as a genuinely one-nation policy, and restoring the economic health of this country after the appalling circumstances in which it was left—I referred to that earlier—in a way that gives proper support to those in need and helps people back to work. The Work programme is among the most successful initiatives. As I said, people in work will inevitably find that across the whole economy we are not in a position to pay ourselves more than we earn, or to carry on doing so, as we did for a long time. As a country, however, we are increasingly earning our way, winning in the global race, getting contracts and exports, investing for the future, and putting in place infrastructure and business investment that will enable us to earn our way to rising living standards in the future.

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

In Harrogate and Knaresborough the number of those claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen by almost a third in a year, and as my right hon. Friend reminded the House earlier, 1.4 million private sector jobs have been created by businesses since 2010. May we have a debate to explore further that positive news about job creation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His constituency in the north of England is a place where jobs are being created and businesses are operating successfully, and he and his constituents can take pride in what they are doing. Generally, it is right to say that there are 1.4 million more people employed in the private sector, and a record number of women in employment. Despite the inevitable and necessary fact that we reduced the deficit and constrained public spending, which led to more than 400,000 fewer public sector jobs, more than three private sector jobs have been created since the election for every public sector job lost.

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

Given widespread support for a sporting legacy from London 2012, may we have a debate on unfair local Government funding to northern cities that means lots of sporting facilities will close, possibly including those at Ennerdale, which is the only standard-size swimming pool for competitions in Hull?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will not comment on that point, but I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has scheduled a debate for Thursday 10 October on the funding of local authorities.

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

Michelle Inch is a constituent who contacted me two years ago when looking for help to set up a business from home. Two years later she now has permanent premises, and is importing, rebranding and sending products throughout the country. She did that with the help of the Prince’s Trust. May we have a debate on the Prince’s Trust and business support in general, to recognise the excellent support that His Royal Highness and the trust give to businesses?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think his experience, which he ably sets out, is reproduced in many constituencies across the country. I have often found inspiring the way that the Prince’s Trust has given hope, opportunity and support to young people whom the rest of the system would probably not have thought had potential. They do have potential, however, which is realised through the offices of the Prince’s Trust. The Government want to ensure that we do our bit, and today the Prime Minister will announce a further extension to the new enterprise allowance, which has already supported the establishment of 26,000 new businesses. That is complementary to work of organisations such as the Prince’s Trust, which has done such great work in the past and today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The UK is an acknowledged world leader in research on and clinical treatment of rare disease. Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on the structure of the UK rare disease plan, which would encourage collaboration across the UK and permit Northern Ireland to participate in the decision-making process?

[Mr Lansley]

I am proud that the first such rare disease plan was published when I was Secretary of State for Health. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health regularly co-ordinate with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations, but I will ask them to what extent that involves working together on the rare disease plan.

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

Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on broadcasting and journalism so that we might pay tribute to the former Gillingham grammar school boy, Sir David Frost, who was a great broadcast journalist and a great ambassador for Gillingham?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and many others on both sides of the House will have mourned the passing of Sir David Frost. I remember not only his sense of humour but the incisiveness with which he conducted his journalism, which is a model for journalists across the world. He is much missed.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Since the 2010 general election, unemployment has fallen by 69% in my constituency, meaning that it is now less than 2%. Would the Leader of the House consider allowing time for a debate on how we can utilise world-class manufacturing businesses which export, such as Pretty Polly and Aristoc in my constituency and others all over Britain, to support economic growth and make sure that employment levels continue to fall?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend gives an impressive account of her constituency that not least demonstrates that this is not a recovery that is being generated in London and by financial services, but is happening across the country and is more broadly based, especially for manufacturing companies. The figures that she quotes from her constituency are very impressive and I am pleased to hear them.

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

In April I asked for a statement on the case of Mr Haroon Aswat. Mr Aswat is wanted in the US as a co-conspirator of Abu Hamza, but the UK has been prevented from deporting him by the European Court of Human Rights. This week, the Court announced it will not even hear the Government’s appeal. It is no wonder that so many people think it is now time that we withdrew from the European convention. May we please now have a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that we are disappointed by the panel’s decision not to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. The Home Secretary does not believe that extradition would breach Haroon Aswat’s human rights, and she will now consider what options are available in this case. I am sure the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage, but I know that the Home Secretary will keep the House informed.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Many young people in my constituency have been taking up jobs and apprenticeships with local food and drink producers, and this Sunday it is the Totally Locally street market in Slaithwaite, with the Holmfirth food and drink festival at the end of the month. May we have a debate on the importance to local economies of food and drink producers and the benefits of shopping locally?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I know that many hon. Members have brought local food and drink producers here as part of a constituency presentation day, which amply illustrates that point. We recognise the benefits that marketing of regional and local food can bring to producers and consumers alike, and shoppers increasingly want to know the provenance of the food they buy and how it has been produced.

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

Three million people have chosen to collect benefits or pensions at the post office through a Post Office card account, but the contract between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office is due to end in 18 months’ time. It is important for those 3 million people and for rural post offices that either POCA or an alternative Post Office product continues after 2015. Time is short, so may we have an urgent debate on the subject?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend asks a good and timely question. He may know that the Department for Work and Pensions contract with Post Office Ltd to provide the Post Office card account expires in March 2015. The DWP, Post Office Ltd and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have begun detailed discussions concerning the future needs of customers beyond that date, to ensure that access to pensions or other welfare benefits is not put at risk. He will also understand that although there is the option to extend the contract for up to two years, the services provided under the contract fall within procurement regulations and would need to be subject to open competition following any period of extension.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

We have an unacceptable situation in Rye, where two giants of the supermarket world co-own one site on which they cannot reach an agreement. For 10 years, my constituents have had to wait to see who can develop it. It is still undeveloped, causing blight and irritation to the whole town. May we have a debate on how to persuade these large corporate giants to act perhaps in the best interest of the community?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point for her constituency. She might seek to raise the issue on the Adjournment at some point, but having raised it in business questions, she would be right to take the opportunity to say to the companies concerned that while it is their decision, she and her local authority might be best placed to try and broker a solution. I encourage the companies to get together, as she asks, and see whether they can do something that is in the best interest of her community.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), can the Leader of the House make a statement confirming that in a Division a Member would not be allowed to cover their face—in fact, they must raise their head and lower it as they go through the Lobby?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a point that is technically a matter for the Speaker, and not a matter for me as Leader of the House. I do not think we need a debate. Unless the Speaker advises me otherwise, I think the rules of the House are clear that a Member must identify themselves to the Tellers in such a way.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we are clear on that point. There is no requirement for a debate on the matter, but we are grateful, as always, to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). We now proceed to the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 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 9 September—My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose an humble address and message on the occasion of the birth of His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge. I expect my right hon. Friend to update the House following the G20, followed by consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 10 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 11 September—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Thursday 12 September—General debate on child protection in the UK, followed by general debate on employment rights.

The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 September—Private Members’ Bills.

The business for the week commencing 7 October will include:

Monday 7 October—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 8 October—Remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (day 1).

Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 2.30 pm on this day.

Wednesday 9 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.

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

[Ms Eagle]

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

A report from the Resolution Foundation yesterday showed that one in five workers is paid less than the living wage, a rise of nearly 1.5 million in three years. We now know that the Government’s economic policies have meant that people are £28 a week worse off than they were in 2010, and for all but one month since the election prices have risen faster than wages. It is not a recovery if it leaves everyone but those at the top behind, and the public are not buying it either. Polling shows that 70% of people believe that recent improvements in the economy have not benefited middle and lower income families, and 81% believe that politicians who say that household incomes have grown faster than price rises are “out of touch”. I could not have put it better myself. This is an out-of-touch Government, complacent on living standards, building an economy that works only for their rich millionaire friends. So may we have an update from the Chancellor about this week’s understanding of his favourite phrase, “We are all in this together”?

The lobbying Bill that we have been discussing this week shows us that instead of getting the big money out of politics, the Government would rather put a gag on campaigners while protecting Lynton Crosby. But that is not surprising when with this Government money seems to buy influence. Hedge funds gave the Conservatives £32 million and then got a massive tax cut, and then there was the tax cut for millionaires. In spite of all this, I was still surprised to see Boris Johnson say this week that he would change his name to “Barclays” in return for £100 million in sponsorship. How long will it be before we see the Cabinet touting for sponsorship too?

We have been back only a few days and it is already back to normal for this Government. We have had a rebellion, chaos in the Whips Office and abject incompetence, and we have had our first U-turn this morning with the dropped plans on legal aid price competition. Where there is chaos there is waste. We have already had the pointless top-down reorganisation of the NHS at a cost of £1.5 billion. This week we have discovered that they have squandered £74 million forgetting to add VAT on the troubled aircraft carrier programme. Today, the sheer scale of the failure at the heart of the Secretary of State for Work and Pension’s flagship universal credit programme became clear. The National Audit Office report says that the scheme has been beset by

“weak management, ineffective control and poor governance”.

We have also learned that £34 million has been wasted on IT and they have spent £300 million on a computer that they do not know what to do with. The NAO blames a fortress mentality where only good news is released. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on this fortress mentality and the impact it may be having on the ability of the civil service to operate effectively in the culture that this Government have created?

Next week, we have the Committee stage of the comically named Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which had its Second Reading on Tuesday. The Opposition are committed to cleaning up lobbying, getting big money out of politics and keeping dodgy donors out of Downing street, but the Bill achieves none of this. The Leader of the House got a very rough ride, including from three Select Committees and his own Back Benchers, for this rushed, incompetently drafted and sinister mess of a Bill. He has already tabled 23 amendments and there will be a lot more, I am sure, before we have finished. This Bill has united the lobbying industry and transparency campaigners, who agree that it will make lobbying less transparent, not more. The Electoral Commission, hundreds of charities, campaigners and many thousands of members of the public are fighting the Government’s sinister gag on free speech in the run-up to a general election.

It seems that the Bill’s only success has been to create a huge coalition against it, so wide that it includes the TaxPayers Alliance, the Royal British Legion, HOPE not hate and 38 Degrees. Yesterday the Prime Minister accused the trade unions of mounting a concerted lobbying campaign against the Bill, but he omitted to mention that Con. Home is against it, too.

The Leader of the House does not seem to have learnt many lessons from his last disastrous attempt at a Bill, the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but I would like to ask him to learn just one: he needs to pause, listen, reflect and improve. Why not start by listening to the important report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, published today? He should scrap the timetable he has just announced for Committee stage and arrange some much-needed pre-legislative scrutiny. Even better, why does he not just go back to the drawing board?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her further questions. On the transparency Bill, she is just trying to rerun the debate we had on Tuesday. All the points she has made were presented in that debate and she lost. The Bill secured a Second Reading and, in particular, the support of the House against the Opposition’s reasoned amendment, which specifically sought a delay.

As I made clear on Second Reading, we will look at some of the concerns that have been raised, but I re-emphasise this point: many of the representations that are being made are based on a complete misunderstanding and a misrepresentation, which is that some change is taking place in the definition of what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes, as distinct from campaigning on policies and issues. Charities will continue to be able to campaign as vigorously as they wish in putting forward their policies, and if any organisations were to step over the line and try to secure the election of a party or a candidate, that should be treated as election expenditure. That was the case in the past and will be the case in future. If there is any way we can make that even clearer, we will set out to do so.

I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition to the letter I sent him before the recess making it clear that the Bill was available for the Labour party to put forward proposals to give trade union members a deliberate choice on their participation in political funds, which he said they should have. Only yesterday we saw Paul Kenny of the GMB clearly trying to push him off his proposals. If he wants to entrench them, he should come forward next week—he still has time to do so—and table amendments to the Bill so that that can be legislated for and he can show his determination. If he does not do so, we will know that he is not serious about doing it at all.

The hon. Lady asked about the urgent question earlier today, trying to rerun points that I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with very well. Let me say one thing, and I say it from personal experience: he is doing absolutely the right thing to ensure that we deliver the programme on universal credit. It is vital that we do so in order to make work pay and to get the incentives in the welfare system right, which the Labour party failed to do. Stepping into a programme to make changes in order to deliver it on time and on budget is the right thing to do, unlike what Labour did with the NHS IT programme, which was to go into denial about all the problems. When my colleagues and I came into office after the general election we found a broken programme that we had to scrap, but in the process we saved over £2 billion, which enabled my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last week to announce a major programme for supporting hospitals and the NHS to improve their technology themselves. That is what we should be doing; we should have workable programmes, not top-down, broken ones. [Interruption.] Talking about the National Audit Office, it has said that delivering the NHS reorganisation programme on time is a major achievement and that it is delivering the planned savings: £5.5 billion from the reform programme itself over the course of this Parliament and £1.5 billion every year thereafter.

The hon. Lady asked one thing about business, regarding an update from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am happy to remind her that he will be at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday to answer questions. I am looking forward to him being able further to remind the House, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, of the events of the summer in relation to the economy, which the hon. Lady did not mention and her leader did not mention at Prime Minister’s Questions. The reason they did not is that the Chancellor will be able to refer to figures showing that employment is up, exports are up, confidence is up, manufacturing is up, services are up, construction is up, housing starts are up, and growth is up. The hon. Lady knows that, as a consequence, the Labour party is going down.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

All parliamentarians in this House will have welcomed the Prime Minister’s courageous decision to recall Parliament last week to have a debate and a vote on Syria before military action could take place. He is really putting Parliament first. Can the Leader of the House confirm that if such circumstances occur in future the Prime Minister will again put a motion before this House before military action takes place?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister and I have been very clear at the Dispatch Box that we will respect the right of Parliament, as the source of authority, to express a view in relation to the use of military force in any substantial way, save that, as the Prime Minister has rightly made clear, in any emergency or on issues that are urgent or a matter of the defence of the national interest and the security of this country, he must have the right and the discretion to act immediately if he is required to do so.

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

I remind the Leader of the House that since the last time we met here for business questions a report from the Institute of Economic Affairs has estimated the cost of High Speed 2—a cost that started at £10 billion, went up to £32 billion, then £42 billion, and then £50 billion—at £80 billion. It also reflects on the fact that this could be very damaging to all the regional cities of our country. May we have an early debate on this?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is considering the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, which affords further opportunities to consider this. Having looked at what the Institute of Economic Affairs said, it seemed to be one of those reports where if one makes a series of assumptions one can arrive at any conclusion one likes. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has put some very substantial contingencies into the programme to make sure that we can deliver it within budget.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the findings of the Lloyds TSB regional purchase managers index, which showed the fastest growth across the country in 12 years, with the fastest growth not in London or the south-east but in north-west England? In my constituency, unemployment is down and production is up, and the manufacturing companies that I speak to are very encouraged by the way in which the economy is recovering. May we have a debate on rebalancing the economy to support businesses in the north-west of England?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, the situation is very encouraging. We all know that the nature of the economic crisis we inherited, with the economy having declined to a gross domestic product of 7.2%, meant that the recovery was inevitably going to be long and difficult; we cannot expect it to be easy. However, it is happening, and on a more sustainable basis. My hon. Friend rightly points out that it is more sustainable if growth is better dispersed around the country rather than merely being based on financial services in the City of London, important as that sector is. It is especially sustainable given the development of exports and manufacturing in many regions of the United Kingdom.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate in Government time on Burma, where Daw Bawk Ja, a land rights activist, was arrested in July? In particular, will the Government support the United Nations General Assembly resolution noting that while there has been progress in Burma, there are still human rights and constitutional issues that need to be addressed?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office update the House regularly on Burma and our concerns. We were very pleased that President Thein Sein’s visit to the United Kingdom in July gave us an opportunity to raise some of those concerns while reinforcing our determination to provide support for Burma, including the increases in humanitarian aid—I was looking up the numbers while the hon. Lady was asking her question—announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who was Secretary of State for International Development at the time.

The House will have welcomed your visit to Burma, Mr Speaker, from 29 July to 4 August, when you led a cross-party delegation of Members of Parliament. The relationship between this Parliament and the emerging democracy in Burma is an important one that we all value.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to wish all my Jewish constituents shanah tovah? As we enter the year 5774 with record levels of employment, unemployment going down, business confidence increasing and all the forecasts on growth going up, is it not surprising that the Opposition do not want to debate the issue? Is it not time to have a general debate on the economy, so that we can expose the Opposition for what they are?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I join him in wishing a happy new year to our Jewish constituents. As we enter the new year, it is encouraging that GDP has been revised up and many independent forecasters are increasing their estimates for growth and that employment is up and unemployment down. We know we have to work hard to sustain the recovery and that it will not be easy, but we can all take a great deal of encouragement from the statistics published over the summer.

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

Sadly and disappointingly, the English Defence League has been given permission to march from Tower Hill near Tower Hamlets on Saturday. Sunday is merchant navy day, the annual commemorative service to remember the sacrifice of seafarers, particularly in the second world war, at the Tower Hill memorial in the park. May I prevail on the Leader of the House to use his good offices to do everything possible to ensure, first, a peaceful demonstration and counter-demonstration on Saturday and, equally importantly, that arrangements are in place to protect the monument and clear up the park so that those relatives and colleagues who will remember the sacrifice from the second world war will be in an environment suitable for the occasion?

[Mr Lansley]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of the memorial for Sunday and that it should not be disturbed. I will, of course, use whatever influence I can bring to bear and speak to my colleagues in the Government and the Mayor’s office to try to secure the action for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

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

We are all very keen that young people in Britain should be more engaged in the political process. I understand that you have given permission, Mr Speaker, for the Youth Parliament to meet in this Chamber during Parliament week to debate its “Curriculum for Life” campaign. May I suggest that we should have a debate ourselves about the outcomes of that debate?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was tremendously impressed by the quality of last year’s UK Youth Parliament debate and in particular the choices it made in pursuing the “Curriculum for Life” campaign. We are looking forward to its sitting in the Chamber on Friday 15 November and I am sure hon. Members will find it a very interesting debate. We may have opportunities ourselves to debate the points it raises. I remind hon. Members that Parliament week, which this year runs from 15 to 21 November, seeks to connect people across the whole country with parliamentary democracy and that this year there will be a special focus on women in democracy, which I know Members will wish to support.

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

Unite the Union and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development have carried out surveys recently to establish how many of their members are engaged in zero-hours contracts. Their findings differ significantly from those of the Office for National Statistics. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the House to clarify how many people in the UK are engaged in zero-hours contracts?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask a Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Secretary of State has stated clearly to the House that he will undertake a review of those issues and I am sure that he will want to report to the House on that.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

On 4 October, I will be hosting an event at the university of Derby at which businesses in my constituency can discuss exporting their products. I am sure that we can all agree—even Opposition Members—that exports are key to maintaining the positive economic figures that we have heard about recently. May we have a debate on reducing the tax and bureaucratic burdens on small and medium-sized businesses to ensure that they can afford to send their products to foreign markets and continue to lead this Government’s economic journey from rescue to recovery?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I welcome what she says about the conference in her constituency. The increase in our exports is making a difference to our economic prospects. There has been a 5.8% increase in exports on a year ago. Given the circumstances, we cannot expect Government spending simply to replace private spending. Consumers, as a result of high levels of debt, have also been retrenching. Our ability to invest and secure growth in the economy therefore depends principally upon winning in the global race and getting into foreign markets. The fact that exports to China have gone up by 80% and to Brazil by 47% demonstrates that our businesses can win in the global race.

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

It was not clear to me whether the Leader of the House refused the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for a debate on what she called the fortress mentality or simply ignored it. Given the issues with the aircraft carrier and what we have just heard about universal credit, can we have an urgent debate about project management in this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I ignored the request of the shadow Leader of the House. She is very forgiving and will no doubt forgive me for that.

We may not be able to have a debate on project management in government in short order, but it would be a good topic to debate at some point, because it would give us an opportunity to demonstrate how the Minister for the Cabinet Office, along with the Major Projects Authority, has been leading a process of improving project management across government. I am confident that such a debate would show that there have been substantial improvements by comparison with what we saw under the last Labour Government, not least in the Department of Health. The National Audit Office has demonstrated that the project delivered during my tenure was a major achievement. As I outlined earlier, we delivered savings that were returned to the health service to improve services for patients.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the community value that is derived when councils lease land and property to charities? Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council is using what I would call a legal technicality and substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money to throw out a much-loved disabled riding charity from its home of 34 years, without any proper explanation to my constituents.

[Mr Lansley]

The House will appreciate that my hon. Friend is making an important point on behalf of his constituents. I know that they will appreciate that too. His borough council will no doubt hear what he has said in this House. It should reflect on the best value guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in 2011 and on the benefits that should be derived by communities from the way in which councils exercise their powers.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on sound science and the implementation of Government policy? Many scientists in the environmental community have been concerned to find out that the badgers that are culled will not be examined to find out whether they had tuberculosis in the first place. Equally, they are concerned about the Government’s proposals to relieve local authorities of the obligation to monitor air quality at a time when we are facing severe and escalated infraction proceedings in the EU because we have failed to meet air quality standards. It looks as though the Government are not properly monitoring the implementation of their own policies.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a written statement on Monday, which set out the basis of the policy. He will also remember the debate of 5 June, when the House voted against an Opposition motion that the badger cull should not go ahead. I know that my right hon. Friend is basing his policy on the best possible scientific advice.

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

When he was Health Secretary, the Leader of the House referred a case of gender selection abortion to the police, no doubt considering it was in the public interest to prosecute. Does he share the grave concern about the fact that, despite sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped the case? There is urgent need for a statement to clarify whether the restrictions on choice in the Abortion Act 1967 are now meaningless.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand when I say that these matters are the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities, and that inside the Government the Attorney-General is responsible for them, not individual Ministers. In so far as we express a view, it is best for us to leave it to the Attorney-General to look at such issues with the CPS.

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

Given the sad news in today’s The Sun that Birmingham, once the city of a thousand trades, has broken into the top five jobless blackspots in the country for the first time since records began, is it not time we had a debate on the need for a growth strategy for the whole nation rather than just London and the south-east?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the experience of Members across the country, who are seeing an increase in employment. There has been a 1.4 million increase in people in employment in the private sector, which is very encouraging. There are more women in employment than ever before, and the proportion of households in which nobody is in work has been reduced to the lowest we have seen. That is encouraging progress. It inevitably varies across the country, but the regional growth fund and the efforts we are making will make a big difference. I know how much he will also look forward to High Speed 2 enabling growth in the regions of the United Kingdom through access to markets and opportunities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Next week, a group of parliamentarians from this House and the other place is to visit Gibraltar for the national day celebrations. May we have a statement from my right hon. Friend sending greetings to the people of Gibraltar on that important event?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to send my personal greetings if he will be kind enough to convey them along with his colleagues—I assume that he is taking part. I also send greetings on behalf of the many colleagues throughout the House who support and appreciate the allegiance of the people of Gibraltar to the British Crown.

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that, as he knows, not least from what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at questions earlier in the week, we remain concerned by the action being taken by the Government of Spain at the border with Gibraltar. We have responded robustly, in partnership with the Government of Gibraltar, and we welcomed the Prime Minister of Gibraltar here last week. We have made it clear to the Spanish Government that their unlawful actions are disproportionate and unacceptable. We have repeatedly expressed our desire to find a diplomatic solution that is acceptable to Spain while reaffirming, as we do from the Dispatch Box repeatedly, our commitment to upholding the rights and interests of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on how Ministers use language? Earlier, we repeatedly heard about “pathfinders”, “rolling out” and “agile processes”—the quiet man was back and turning up the jargon. Could we not make such meaningless phrases unparliamentary, particularly as the statement seemed to be less about universal credit and more about him attributing universal blame to everyone except himself?

[Mr Lansley]

I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He made perfectly good sense and used no jargon at all. He set out absolutely the right objective and policy. He is determined to get there on time and on budget. I heard that several times—he could not have been clearer.

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

When questioned about High Speed 2 on Tuesday, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, Sir Nick Macpherson, told the Treasury Committee that:

“There will be opportunities to reassess it”

and that the Government

“have not signed a blank cheque”.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the Government’s view?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Transport will be at the Dispatch Box next Thursday to answer questions. Nobody is writing a blank cheque—that is the whole point. That is why, in the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, we have clearly set out a budget with contingencies, as people would expect. They expect us to plan, as we did for the Olympics—a good example—to have a clear budget rather than one that keeps moving, and a budget that has sufficient contingency so that the project is entirely deliverable within it.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the continuing controversy over the reorganisation of A and E services in Shropshire? Telford people want to retain full 24-hour A and E services in Shropshire. I believe the people of Shrewsbury want the same. Should not health services be designed around the needs of people and not the needs of health bosses?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and I agree that health services should be designed around the needs of people—that has always been our view. It is important that commissioning organisations—the new commissioning organisations, with general practitioners who know their population and patients best—have the influence necessary to make that happen. As he knows, Sir Bruce Keogh is undertaking a review generally of A and E services. I cannot comment on the specifics in Shropshire, although I remember them well, but I am sure the Secretary of State will have an opportunity before too long further to update the House on that review.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The Humble Address on Monday to mark the birth of Prince George of Windsor—[Hon. Members: “Cambridge!”] I am sorry; I meant to say Prince George of Cambridge. The Humble Address will provide an opportunity for hon. Members who were fortunate to be born in the reign of Prince George’s late great-great-grandfather, the much-loved and last King George, to observe how fortunate we are to have the leadership, continuity and security of the royal family. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give some thought to the possibility of affording an opportunity to Members of the House to subscribe to a decent christening present for the young Prince George of Cambridge? Perhaps it could be something he could use in later childhood, such as a really good cricket bat.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

We could have both.

[Mr Lansley]

I can feel a coat of arms coming on—[Laughter.] I appreciate the recognition of that joke from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). As one of the two Members who represent the city of Cambridge, I can say that we are only too delighted to have the titles not only of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge associated directly with the city, but of Prince George. Mr Speaker and others more fitted than I am might have a word about whether there is an opportunity to follow up my hon. Friend’s idea. No doubt they will let him know in due course.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

With the rugby league world cup getting under way in just 50 days’ time, may I suggest a rugby ball as a christening present?

I was delighted this summer during my volunteering week to join the Green Streams project clearing the bank of the River Colne at Milnsbridge. However, all our hard work was undone by appalling fly-tipping upstream. May we have a debate on the scourge of fly-tipping and see what measures can be taken to stamp out that damaging act to our local environment?

[Mr Lansley]

Given what my hon. Friend was saying about sport, perhaps, as the Tour de France will be going through Cambridge, a racing bike, not just a rugby ball, would be appropriate.

I think many Members will sympathise with my hon. Friend on fly-tipping. He will be comforted to know that local authorities and the Environment Agency have powers to deal with those responsible, but the Government are taking further action to tackle fly-tipping. We are strengthening the powers of local authorities and the Environment Agency to stop, search and seize the vehicles of suspected waste criminals.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Half a million people have marginal deduction rates of 80%—they lose 80p in every £1 they earn. That is an unacceptable legacy of the previous Government that this Government are determined to put right through universal credit. Does the Leader of the House share my disappointment, therefore, that this morning the Opposition gave no support for a project that will help so many of our poorest workers? This is particularly ironic given all our concerns about living standards. Does he share my view that all Members should welcome the changes made by the Secretary of State in 2012 to ensure this vital programme is delivered on time and within budget?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the points he makes came through strongly in the course of the exchanges. The Opposition utterly failed in their criticisms of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and further demonstrated that while they may talk about welfare reform, they have opposed every step we have taken to live within budgets, and to heighten incentives to give people every possible encouragement and support to be in work.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

This week Yorkshire Water came to Westminster to meet Yorkshire MPs to explain why, at a time when it is raising customers’ bills, it paid zero tax in the past financial year. May we have a debate on how Yorkshire Water, and other water utility companies, are paying such low levels of corporation tax?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but my hon. Friend will know that considerable effort is being put in by the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury Committee and other Select Committees. The Government are seeking to ensure that people pay the tax that is due, and that we minimise tax avoidance and act against tax evasion. As far as corporation tax is concerned, the Prime Minister will update us on the G20 summit. Acting on an international basis on profit shifting and so on could make a dramatic difference. Following on from the G8, the Government and the UK are taking an excellent lead in trying to ensure that we have that kind of tax regime of an international basis.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

A report by the Royal College of Physicians last year pointed out that whereas there are 30 medical specialties in Norway, there are 63, and rising, in the UK. It explained the pressures that this brings on to the NHS. May we have a debate on medical specialties in the UK and the consequences for the NHS—particularly on smaller, acute hospitals—and on the important work that generalists do?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend tempts me, because this is a very interesting subject. At the same as we have had greater specialisation and continue to try to ensure that we drive forward with excellence and the highest standards in clinical terms, there has been something of a revival in the medical profession of generalist positions, for example, general surgeons. From personal experience I know it is important sometimes to establish specialties. We did that about five years ago in relation to strokes, for which there was not previously a stroke speciality. It is a complicated issue that would no doubt merit debate. I cannot promise a debate, but what my hon. Friend has said may well start the ball rolling.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Unemployment in Tamworth now stands at its lowest level since 2008. On 12 October, I shall play my own small part in helping to drive it down still further when, with the Tamworth Herald, I will host a jobs fair at South Staffordshire college. May we have a debate on jobs fairs to highlight the value they provide by bringing together local employers and jobseekers, and by the practical way they help us to help our constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he is doing in his constituency is important. He and other colleagues have demonstrated through jobs fairs that there are many practical steps we can take to help to connect those who are without work with the jobs that are available. The latest data show that we have near-record levels of vacancies in the economy. Matching people to jobs is vital, as the success of job fairs demonstrates. I will not reiterate the points I made earlier, but the increase in employment of 935,000 since the election demonstrates that they have the benefits that we are looking for.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Tourism in Brighton and Hove is worth a staggering £1 billion a year. This morning, Labour twice failed to rule out a tourism tax in oral questions, and the Leader of the Opposition has failed to reply to a letter of four weeks ago. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who is in his place, seems to think it is a good idea. May we please have a debate on this disastrous policy?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may say so to my hon. Friend, I must not hold the Government accountable for the policies of the Labour Opposition—or, indeed, of any Labour council—but I can at least note that, as our old friend David Mellor once told us, dogs bark, ducks quack and Labour puts up taxes.

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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

As a coalition Government, we inherited a legacy of a lack of trust and confidence in our political system. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Labour Members would laugh at that thought, as they were responsible for 13 years of it. To tackle this, we have sought to be the most transparent Government in history. We are the first Government to publish details of meetings that Ministers and permanent secretaries have with external organisations, of our gifts and hospitality and of departmental business plans, as well as a wide range of raw data.

The Bill takes practical steps to take those principles forward. It implements our coalition commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, providing transparency in who lobbies whom, and for whom.

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

Will the Leader of the House place in the House of Commons Library the results of the public consultation that he has carried out on the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of two things: first, that a consultation took place on the issues relating to a statutory register of lobbyists in January 2012 and, secondly, that the Labour party did not respond to that consultation, so seriously did it take it.

The introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will fulfil a commitment made in “The Coalition: our programme for government”. There are two key principles reflected in the Bill. The first is that transparency is central to accountability and that the public should be able to see how third parties seek to influence the political system. The second is that third parties should act in an open and accountable way. The Bill will give the public more confidence about the way third parties interact with the political system, including about how much money they spend on political campaigning, especially if they seek to influence elections directly.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

As a proud former lobbyist, both in-house and in consultancy—indeed, I learned my trade in the same firm in which Mr Speaker himself had worked—I fully appreciate the value that the industry brings to inform and educate Members of Parliament, often on very technical issues. Having worked for many charities and voluntary organisations, too, I recognise their concerns about this Bill, so will my right hon. Friend explain how or why the Bill will not, as many fear it will, gag them, but will allow them to continue their excellent work of informing MPs as a healthy part of the democratic process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It must have been a fine training ground indeed that she shares with you, Mr Speaker. I will, of course, come on to explain in detail how aspects of the non-party campaigning provisions will work, but let me give this assurance. We are very clear that we are in no sense seeking substantively to change the boundary between campaigning on policies and issues, which charities and other third parties do to a substantial extent, and being required to register spending for electoral purposes—[Interruption.] We are not proposing to change the boundary, so charities, think-tanks, non-governmental organisations and campaign organisations should not be alarmed that this Bill will impact in any sense on their ability to campaign on policy issues.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

All right, all right. I have given way before and will do so again. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) was the first to rise, so I give way to her.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House, and I am quite delighted to have the opportunity to burst his bubble of confidence, because his Bill has created almost a fire-storm in my constituency. My constituents are appalled at what they regard as a gagging Bill. They wish to see a list of lobbyists that is transparent to ensure that Government cannot be bought—even though that is a debatable issue. They know that the Bill as it stands would prevent democratic voices from being heard.

[Mr Lansley]

I look forward to the hon. Lady having an opportunity after today’s debate to go back to her constituents to tell them that the things they are alarmed about will not happen. I am very clear and the Bill is very clear. [Interruption.] I will come on to deal with this in more detail later, but let me explain to hon. Members that election law already has a clear provision that determines that if third parties wish to engage in expenditure, the intention or effect of which is to procure electoral success, they are required, beyond a certain point, to register with the Electoral Commission in respect of that expenditure—and there are limits on it: that expenditure is controlled.

At the last election, I think that only a couple of charities registered for this purpose and the levels of expenditure were relatively modest. Other third parties—a larger number of them—that were not charities engaged in such third-party expenditure, but charities by and large did not. That does not mean that they cannot campaign during an election period, because they campaign on policies and issues and they interact with political parties on those issues, and they will continue to be completely free to do so. All the Bill does—it is the right thing to do—is, first, to make sure that the limit is more appropriate for the future so that it does not allow those third parties to engage in distorting activity during elections; and, secondly, to extend the definition of controlled expenditure so that it includes advertising, rallies and such like, as well as electoral material, and to disaggregate the total into parliamentary constituencies so that third parties cannot disproportionately concentrate their spending in individual constituencies. I think that all of that is perfectly rational.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Is not my right hon. Friend missing the elephant in the room, which is the fact that only two organisations spent over the £377,000 cap? The first, by quite a long way, was Unison. The reason why there is agitation on the Opposition Benches is that they do not like having political expenditure limits on political parties on account of their own parent organisations, the trade unions?

[Mr Lansley]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is accurate because at the last election, relatively few organisations—only two, I think—spent a sum of money that was above the proposed limit. It is conceivable that a whole range of organisations might try to spend large amounts of money to influence directly votes for candidates and political parties rather than campaigning on policies and issues. It is important—election law already provides for this—that elections are fought essentially between political parties, and the expenditure undertaken to support candidates of political parties should be authorised by them. That is why many people donate to political parties to support the campaign at a constituency level.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

If Members will forgive me, I am at risk of dealing with part 2 before I have dealt with part 1. I am going to talk simply about part 1—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Many people would want him to reassure third parties and charities, but he seems to me to be complacent about the issue. The Electoral Commission briefing for today’s debate states that,

“the Bill creates significant regulatory uncertainty for large and small organisations that campaign on, or even discuss, public policy issues in the year before the…general election, and imposes significant new burdens on such organisations”.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman’s complacent attitude is completely at odds with what the Electoral Commission—his own regulator—has written to all of us.

[Mr Lansley]

I had conversations yesterday with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which helpfully supplied us with a copy of its legal advice, which of course illustrates that, technically, the uncertainties that are being talked about could in large part be construed to relate to existing legislation rather than the Bill that we are bringing forward. In truth, it is the responsibility of the Charity Commission, where charities are concerned, and the Electoral Commission for all third parties, to work together to ensure the soundness of the definitions in the Bill. Frankly, they are substantively the same definitions for electoral purposes—[Interruption.] The definitions on controlled expenditure and on the appropriate limits are changed, but the definition that relates to spending being for electoral purposes if it is intended or has the effect of procuring or promoting support for candidates of political parties is not changed. The Electoral Commission knows that part of its job is to make sure that that boundary is policed, and the guidance on that is very clear.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I want to make some progress before giving way again.

As I say, we need to give confidence to the public about the way in which third parties interact with the political system, including about how much money they spend on political campaigning, especially if they seek to influence elections directly. The Bill will also give the confidence that trade unions know who their members are. These are sensible and reasonable steps: we are not setting out to create a burdensome bureaucracy or to deter legitimate campaigning or representation.

Let me deal with part 1 first.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way in a few moments.

Part 1 relates to the creation of a statutory register of consultant lobbyists. Let me be clear, first, that lobbying is a necessary—indeed an inevitable and often welcome—part of policy making and the parliamentary process. We should not seek to prevent lobbying, but to make it transparent who is lobbying whom and for what.

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

On that very point, let me assure the Leader of the House that many Opposition Members, particularly myself, believe that lobbying is at the very heart of our democracy. We should have it, but it should be regulated and should be transparent. What worries us is, first, that many charities believe that the Bill will have deleterious effect, but secondly, we are worried about all the people that are left out—the big law firms, for example. Many of those firms are 50% lobbyists and 50% lawyers, yet they will not be tackled by the Bill. Big accountancy firms that are full of lobbyists are the same, as are the in-house lobbyists of these major companies. Why are they being left out of this register?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we agree about the intention, although I would add that Parliament is at the heart of our democracy and lobbying is an essential aspect of the way in which Parliament does its job. It is clear that Members on both sides of the House have been lobbied extensively in relation to the Bill, and rightly so.

We are not leaving out a large number of people who engage in consultant lobbying. If people have a substantial business involving such lobbying, they should register, and that will be made clear.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I should give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan).

[Mrs Gillan]

I think every Member would agree with the Leader of the House that we want lobbying to be transparent. As he knows, however, many people all over the country are fighting a project known as HS2, and they firmly believe that the Bill contains provisions that will inhibit their effectiveness in ensuring that their voice is heard by the Government and by Ministers. Will the Leader of the House undertake to give specific consideration to the effect on anti-HS2 campaigns that is apparent from provisions that are already in the Bill, and to ensure, when examining the Bill further, that the voice of those people will never be inhibited by legislation?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me give my right hon. Friend this assurance. I believe that absolutely nothing in this legislation would prevent those who campaign on issues relating to the High Speed 2 rail route from making their case as forcefully as they wish. However, if at the time of an election they went further and spent money on trying to procure or prevent the election of particular candidates, and if that expenditure exceeded a certain limit, they would quite properly be required, by existing legislation as well as by this Bill, to register and be accountable for it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I shall carry on for a bit, but I will give way again after that. I intend to be generous and open about this.

We agree that lobbying is necessary, but, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), transparency is key. We want to know who is lobbying, and for whom. However, there is a gap in the current transparency regime. When Ministers meet consultant lobbyists, it is not always clear on whose behalf they are lobbying. We want to rectify that, and the specific aim of the register is to put the information in the public domain.

I am grateful to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its work in examining part 1 of the Bill last year, and for its subsequent scrutiny of the draft version of the entire Bill.

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

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me apologise to the hon. Gentleman before I give way to him. I think the Committee was irritated by the long delay that took place before the Government responded to the report that it published in June last year. I reiterate our apology for that, although, as the Committee knows, our response had to wait for our policy conclusions, and that took some time. Let me add, however, that in most instances the Committee, and many who have proffered alternative plans, are seeking to do something different from what the Bill sets out to do. They are seeking to regulate lobbying activity, while we are seeking to create a transparency regime so that we can see who is lobbying, but are not attempting to control the industry.

[Mr Allen]

I thank the Leader of the House for apologising on the Floor of the House for the way in which the Government have treated the all-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept his apology, and hope he will be able to help us create a Bill that is viable for all parties.

The Leader of the House mentioned that my Committee had examined part 1 of the Bill. We did not examine part 1; we examined only the consultation document relating to what has become part 1, the reason being that parts 2 and 3 did not appear until one day before the recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but Members—especially those who have had the privilege of being in Government—will be aware that Bills often contain more than one specific measure. What is important, and what this Bill accurately reflects, is the Government’s recognition not only of the necessity—as we saw it—for a statutory register of lobbyists that would enable us to see how third parties seek to influence the political system through consultant lobbying, but of the existence of further issues relating to third-party influence in the political system, and the need for assurances in regard to trade unions and the way in which third parties campaign during elections.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way in a moment, but let me first pursue the point about those who are trying to regulate all lobbying activity. Having thought very carefully about whether there was a considered or credible basis for taking that much wider action, we concluded that there was not, and that is therefore not our objective in the Bill. I readily accept that some people would like the Bill to be very different. Indeed, the reasoned amendment indicates that the Opposition have suddenly decided that they want to include all professional lobbyists and everything that they do in a register, although they presented no such proposal to the Government last year.

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

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the hon. Gentleman presented a private Member’s Bill. The point is, however, that we are not aiming for the creation of the bureaucratic monster that would result from action of that kind. We are aiming for transparency rather than the control of lobbying, the result of which would be the registration of thousands of lobbyists and a requirement for a draconian system of reporting and enforcement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Leader of the House must be well aware that the Bill will catch grass-roots campaigners in the crossfire. Charitable and Christian groups feel that it will disadvantage them, and have pointed out that big parties can spend millions of pounds when they are picking on a little guy in politics. How would the Leader of the House respond to that?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me repeat, and add to, what I have already said about charities. Charities know, and have told us, that the Charity Commission guidance is clear about the fact that they should not undertake party political activity. To that extent, there are very limited circumstances in which charities might consider it essential, from their point of view, to register their spending as spending for an electoral purpose. I am at a loss to understand how they think the Bill could have an adverse impact on their ability to campaign on policies and issues for their charitable purposes.

The statutory register of lobbyists will require anyone who is lobbying Ministers or permanent secretaries on behalf of a third party and in return for payment to declare his or her contact details and clients on the register.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Schedule 1 makes an exception for Members of Parliament who lobby on behalf of people living in their constituencies, but does not refer to Members of the European Parliament, Members of devolved Administrations, city councillors and the like. Do the Government intend to require councillors who write to Ministers on behalf of their electorates to register themselves as consultant lobbyists?

[Mr Lansley]

No. We believe that the position is the same as that relating to Members of Parliament, and that given the nature of what constitutes the business of consultant lobbying, the Bill would not include those who were not involved in that business.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I share a concern that has been expressed by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who is not in the Chamber at present. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 effectively repeats a fundamentally important tenet of the House which is enshrined in the 1688 Bill of Rights, namely that anything said in this House shall not be questioned in any court of the land. Paragraph 2, however, qualifies that by stating:

“A Member of Parliament who makes communications…on behalf of…persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying. “

I, for example, have an interest in defence. What will happen if I raise the question of a company that is not in my constituency? Will I then be in the business of lobbying? And what about colleagues who raise questions about wind turbines? What protection is provided by the Bill of Rights?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right: schedule 1 refers specifically to the principles of exclusive cognisance and parliamentary privilege, and does not seek to impinge on them in any way. However, we consider that the normal activities of Members of Parliament could never be considered to be lobbying, and we have included exclusions in the Bill which we believe make it clear that MPs are not included. I am perfectly willing to reassure colleagues that I will continue the conversations I have had with the House authorities, and that I will continue to maintain discussions with colleagues. If there is any doubt about whether Members of Parliament might, in any form in respect of their activities in the House, be included or compromised in relation to this, we will put a specific provision into the Bill to make sure that does not happen. We will be very clear about that.

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

May I remind the Leader of the House that the reason the Government decided a few months ago to bring forward the lobbying Bill was that they had dropped their proposals for plain packaging of cigarettes following the employment of a paid lobbyist of the tobacco industry as the head of the Conservative party election campaign? Given that that is the origin of this Bill, can the Leader of the House explain why no provisions in this Bill would shed any light or give any transparency on the involvement of Lynton Crosby in these matters?

[Mr Lansley]

Since I am here presenting the Bill to the House and I was the Secretary of State who initiated the consultation on plain packaging, I am probably in quite a good position to tell the right hon. Gentleman that what he just said was complete tosh.

To ensure—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let us return to the question of the statutory register of lobbyists. To ensure the independence of the system—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Sit down. I am not giving way at the moment.

To ensure the independence of the system, the register will be administered and enforced by an independent registrar of consultant lobbyists who will provide guidance on compliance and publish an online register on a quarterly basis. The registrar will have the power to issue information notices to investigate where he or she believes that consultant lobbying is taking place without registration. Where this is found, the registrar will also have the power to impose civil penalties. Criminal sanctions will be available for those guilty of deliberate non-compliance.

The register will be funded by the lobbying industry via a subscription charge, but to reduce the burden on the smallest businesses, organisations that are not VAT-registered will not be required to pay the charge. There will therefore be no impact on the public purse as a result of these measures.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May I return briefly to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and give an example? Richard III is dead; he is clearly nobody’s constituent, yet the hon. Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley), for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) want his bones in their constituency. In campaigning for that, do they need to register under the provisions of the Bill, and if not, what is the purpose of the reference to Members of Parliament’s constituents in schedule 1? Why not simply rely on the protections to Members of Parliament in the Bill of Rights and the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009?

[Mr Lansley]

We could not simply rely on the parliamentary privilege provisions because they would not extend to all the activities of Members of Parliament beyond those in this Chamber and our activities directly in relation to the House. That is why in the Bill there is, we believe, both a specific exemption in schedule 1—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) were less insistent, he might listen more.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just politely suggest to the House that, in terms of the orderly conduct of debate, it is probably as well if the Leader of the House responds to one intervention before being aggressively exhorted to take another?

[Mr Lansley]

Right as ever, Mr Speaker.

To respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), we believe there is both the exemption that Members of Parliament are not caught because they are not engaged in the business of lobbying and also the specific exemption in relation to representing constituents, but I will repeat what I have just said: if there is any doubt about this matter, we will come back to the House and put it beyond doubt. So I do not think colleagues should continue the debate about whether Members of Parliament are caught or not, as we will look at that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then, of course, the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron).

[Caroline Lucas]

(Brighton Pavilion) (Green): The very fact that the Leader of the House is having to say he will come back to the House to address our concerns shows that this Bill is incredibly badly drafted, but the point I want to make is that recent freedom of information requests reveal that Treasury officials met fracking industry representatives 19 times in the last 10 months about their generous tax breaks, yet the public are denied any further details of that lobbying on the grounds that it could prejudice commercial interests. Is the Leader of the House not ashamed that this Bill will drastically curtail the ability of charities to campaign in the public interest on issues such as fuel poverty and energy but do nothing to curb such secretive corporate influencing?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course the Bill does not constrain the ability of charities to campaign. Let us look back at 2010. Only two charities registered for expenditure for electoral purposes and they spent very little. The campaigning by third parties at the last election was not in any substantial way undertaken by charities. It was undertaken by other third parties—trade unions, companies, campaign groups and so forth. The idea that charities are in any way constrained is completely wrong.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I promised to give way to—

[Chris Bryant]

Please will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

Oh, the hon. Gentleman said “please”! Okay, but I will give way to the Chairman of the Standards Committee.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Standards Committee met this morning and has agreed a report on the implications of this Bill for Members of Parliament, and we are making strong recommendations that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 should be removed and that there should be a sub-paragraph in paragraph 6 stating that any payments we get from IPSA cannot be interpreted as money for lobbying. I hope the Leader of the House will take this into account and make sure the requisite amendments are made before the Bill leaves this House at the end of next week.

[Mr Lansley]

My colleagues will, of course, take what the Standards Committee has said very much into account, and I think that illustrates, contrary to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, why the Bill has not been badly drafted. This is not the first time this has happened. It happens with every piece of legislation in my experience. Sometimes we have to have belt, braces and a piece of string to make sure everybody is absolutely convinced that we are doing what we intend to do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda, but colleagues behind me on the Government Benches have also been patient.

[Chris Bryant]

I am deeply grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. He says this is all about transparency, but if I have got it right every single member of the public affairs team in-house at BSkyB will be able to visit as many Ministers as they want and every single lawyer employed by BSkyB to advance its case will be able to do so without any need to register. The only person who would have to register would be an independent consultant in a company that solely lobbies. How does that possibly afford greater transparency?

[Mr Lansley]

It promotes transparency because if a representative of Sky visits a Minister in order to discuss that business, it is transparent that they are doing so in order to represent the interests of Sky. However, if somebody from “XYZ Corporation”, a consultant lobbying firm, visits a Minister in order to discuss somebody else’s business but it is not transparent through the ministerial diary publication who they are representing, that is not transparent. We propose to remedy that by making it transparent.

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

Following on from my right hon. Friend’s exchange with the Green party member, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), this morning I received a plea from a constituent to stop bullying charities. I asked which ones she was concerned about and she said, “The Green party.” I said it is already covered. She also mentioned 38 Degrees, to which I replied, “That is not a charity”—even though it has wiped from its Wiki-entry the Labour activism of many of its founders.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The public might well think that many of the organisations that registered for electoral purposes were charities, but in fact they registered because they were seeking to undertake expenditure which would not have been regarded as charitable and would not have been lawful from the point of view of the Charity Commission’s guidance. It is overwhelmingly the case that charitable activity by charities does not constitute expenditure for electoral purposes and therefore is not in any sense constrained by this legislation. There are, however, other organisations that people might think are charities but which are not charities, or charities that set up campaigning arms that expressly do not have charitable status in order for them to undertake that activity. The law is already clear that where they seek directly to influence electoral outcomes, they should register. The Labour party’s reasoned amendment accepts that that is right and there should be such regulation.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I am not giving way now. This is an important debate to which I know that colleagues want to contribute, and I want to commence by giving them the chance to hear precisely what the Bill does.

We have heard repeated calls from the Opposition and others saying that the register should be expanded to include so-called “in-house” lobbyists, but what is not clear is what problem such an expansion would solve. As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda, when a lobbyist from Shell or the WWF, to give typical examples, comes to meet Ministers it is quite clear whose interest they are representing, and these meetings are already publicly disclosed—the public can see that they happen. That is unlike what happens with any such meetings with shadow Ministers, as the Opposition have not committed to publish their shadow ministerial diaries.

In a debate some 10 weeks ago, I asked the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, to consider whether Opposition Front Benchers might like to agree now to publish their diaries as part of this process of openness, but I am afraid that they have not agreed to do so. While I am referring to the Opposition, I must say that I am bemused by their suggestions that we should create an unworkable bureaucracy with spiralling administrative costs without a policy rationale. There is some confused thinking there, and they are attempting to jump on a bandwagon without having considered the implications of their policies—policies that were so important to them that the Labour party did not even respond to the public consultation on our proposals last year.

I am therefore proud that the coalition has introduced a Bill to put in place this register, which is a practical step in an area that the Labour party simply put in the “too difficult” box when in government; it failed to do anything in its 13 years in office. Our proposal addresses a specific problem. It is designed to capture professional consultant lobbyists, and that will include multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations—a point important to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who is no longer in his place. There are exclusions, however, for those operating in a representative capacity, such as the vast majority of trade associations and charities.

I believe that the great majority of those in our Parliament and our political system behave well. But, human nature being what it is, the minority tempted to do otherwise need to know that they cannot engage in sustained, concealed efforts to peddle influence. Their activity will be brought into the open and they must expect to be held to account for their behaviour. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Let me turn now to the second part of the Bill.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend said that the previous Government had put this issue in the “too difficult to do” box. A lot of those who, like me, were working in the charitable sector before we came into Parliament understand the distinction between being non-party political as a charity and being able to engage robustly in policy debate. However, if this is in the “too difficult” box—or certainly in the “difficult to do” box—and the Electoral Commission has issued a briefing indicating that it is creating regulatory uncertainty, would the Leader of the House agree that the programme for the Bill’s consideration is far too short? Would he agree that the programme motion needs to be rewritten and that this House needs to be given a great deal more time to consider these difficult things—as he says they are too difficult to do in many senses—and to clarify these issues to reassure the charitable and community sector?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that I agree with the premise of what my hon. Friend says, which was that this is that difficult. Clearly, as I said before, my conversations with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations show that there are existing uncertainties for third parties as to what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes. The legislation does not clear up those difficulties because it substantively repeats the existing test, so it is important for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance to support it. However, we intend to allocate substantial time for the Bill to be considered.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said that consultant lobbyists will have to register whereas in-house lobbyists will not, and I understand that point. May I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). He asked about large accountancy companies and large firms of solicitors who represent a number of clients and frequently, understandably and rightly come to Members of Parliament and Ministers to put forward their point. Is there not a very fine dividing line between those who will be required to register and those who will not? Is my right hon. Friend happy that the person making the judgment on who should have to register could be very easily compromised?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that it is that difficult. Either one is lobbying on behalf of one’s own organisation or as a representative of an organisation. For example, when I was Secretary of State for Health and I was meeting the British Medical Association, it was clear on whose behalf it was lobbying. If I was meeting a consultant lobbying organisation, it would not have been clear in that way. Where there is any doubt, people will be in a position to ask the registrar for the statutory register whether it is appropriate to register.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me deal with the second part of the Bill—time will frustrate us otherwise, but I will give way once more before I conclude. Let me explain the second part of the Bill so that the House is clear about what it does and does not do.

It is good that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in, whether they do it inside or outside a political party. Campaign groups play an important role in the political process. That will continue and it has never been in doubt. The intention of this Bill is to bring greater transparency when third parties campaign in an election. Relevant expenditure on such campaigns will now be more fully recorded and disclosed. To avoid the situation we see in some other countries, where vast amounts of money are spent without any bar or regulation—

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

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I said that I would give way a little later on. As I was saying, the Bill strengthens the existing limits on the campaign spending of third parties. We have spending limits on parties at elections. That ensures a degree of equality of arms, and we should not see it undermined by distorting activity of disproportionate expenditure by third parties. The limits we are setting—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members would listen, they might understand better what the Bill does. The limits we are setting will allow organisations that want to campaign still to do so. The expenditure thresholds at which third parties are required to register with the Electoral Commission are being lowered. That will allow members of the public better to identify the great number of organisations that exert influence in political campaigns.

The Government’s clear view is that nothing in the Bill should change the basic way in which third parties campaign and register with the Electoral Commission. Currently, third parties register if they are campaigning to promote the electoral success, or otherwise enhance the standing, of a party or candidates. That will stay the same, so the argument made by the campaign group 38 Degrees that the changes stop campaigning on policy areas is not correct. The requirement to register applies only if the spending is for electoral purposes.

[Pete Wishart]

The Leader of the House will know that in Scotland we very much welcome the contribution of civic society to our democratic debate. He said that the Bill has implications for Scottish parliamentary elections and other elections. Does he know what those implications are yet?

[Mr Lansley]

We are very clear that this has an impact on the structure of election law in the way described in the Bill, and we will go through that in detail in Committee.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has mentioned HS2. What happens when specific constituency issues such as those relating to a hospital—I am thinking of my Support Stafford Hospital campaign—only arise during an election campaign and it is not their fault that they arise in an election period?

[Mr Lansley]

They will be entirely free to campaign on the issues that concern them. The issue is not whether expenditure is being undertaken during an election period but whether the expenditure is being undertaken in an election period and for electoral purposes. Overwhelmingly, campaigning by third parties in an election period is not done for electoral purposes; it is done in order to convey their views about policies and issues. That is perfectly legitimate, it is outwith the definition of “for electoral purposes” and it will not therefore be constrained.

The Bill does change—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way again later.

The Bill does change the activities in respect of which spending may count towards the third parties’ spending limits. Those activities are being more closely aligned with the type of expenditure that is regulated for political parties, a change that the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission, advocated to us in June. I understand that that particular provision has caused concern within the charitable sector. Charity law prohibits charities from engaging in party politics, from party political campaigning, from supporting political candidates and from undertaking political activity unrelated to the charity’s purpose. The Bill does not change that.

Charities will still be able to give support to specific policies that might also be advocated by political parties if it helps to achieve their charitable purposes. The Bill does not seek to regulate charities that simply engage with the policy of a political party. It does not prevent charities from having a view on any aspect of the policy of a party and it does not inhibit charities attempting to influence the policy of a party. Such activity would be captured only if it was carried out in such a way that it could be seen also to promote the election of a political party or candidate or otherwise to enhance their standing at an election. The situation is the same as under the current legislation and remains unchanged by this Bill. That is a key point to allay charities’ concerns.

I recognise that the wording of the clause has caused representative bodies to be concerned, and I am keen to continue the discussions with campaigners in which colleagues and I have already taken part. I can reassure them that we are not proposing a substantive change in the test of whether third party spending is considered to be for electoral purposes.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I have genuine concerns about the change to the definition of “charitable use”, and particularly about the use of the word “activity” for electoral purposes rather than “materials”. To enable us to support the Bill and the reform, will the Leader of the House assure me that that can be looked at again, with the involvement of the charitable organisations?

[Mr Lansley]

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I and my colleagues—the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is responsible for political and constitutional reform—met the NCVO again yesterday. We will continue to do so. Let me reiterate that I am not looking for a substantive change in the test of what is expenditure for electoral purposes, but we are looking for a change, advocated to us by the Electoral Commission, in what constitutes controlled expenditure so that it is not just about election materials but includes activities such as advertising and election rallies.

[Mr Allen]

The charitable sector is concerned about the issue, first, because the expenditure limits are tighter and will be policed, enforced and regulated in a different way and, secondly, because included in the normal expenditure envelope is stuff that has not been there before, such as staffing. In effect, that reduces charities’ ability to campaign. That is part of the rich diversity of our political life leading into a general election and it is being reduced. If the Leader of the House feels that that is not his intention, I am sure that everyone in the House would welcome clarification by amendment as the Bill makes progress.

[Mr Lansley]

As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in his Committee and as I have said to the House, charities do not overwhelmingly undertake expenditure for electoral purposes, so we are not necessarily principally talking about charities. We are talking about third parties—by and large, they are not charities. The Electoral Commission asked us to include a different and wider definition of controlled expenditure to bring it more appropriately into line with the definition of controlled expenditure for political parties. It is not true that this is the first time that staff costs have been included, because staff costs have been included in activity under controlled expenditure up until now.

The point is that if someone is undertaking expenditure for electoral purposes, they should expect to be regulated and proper account should be taken of it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I am now 46 minutes into my speech and I am not going to give way again, because I am going to explain the remainder of the Bill’s provisions—[Interruption.] I apologise to colleagues, but I have to complete the description of what the Bill will achieve.

The Bill also introduces a provision whereby third parties will be permitted to spend only up to a certain amount of their controlled expenditure in individual constituencies. That is to prevent a third party from directing a large proportion of its national spending limit at only a small part of the UK, thereby focusing the full force of the considerable spending available to it on a small geographical location. That would, and indeed does, allow disproportionately large amounts of money to distort election campaigns and the political process.

A number of third parties campaign in a way that supports a particular political party or its candidates. That is entirely legitimate, but it must not be allowed to become a vehicle for evading party spending rules. We believe that it is right that the political party should be able to oversee which organisations offer it significant campaign support. The Bill introduces a new measure that will require third parties that spend significant sums campaigning in a way that can reasonably be regarded as supporting a particular political party or its candidates to be specifically authorised by the political party to campaign in that manner. That spending will then be counted towards both the third party and the political party’s spending limits.

The transparency of the regulatory regime is enhanced by the Bill. When third parties campaign to support political parties, expenditure will now be more fully recorded and disclosed. Donations to third parties will now have to be published in advance of an election, rather than after it. Third parties will have to provide a statement of accounts. Those measures can only be good for maintaining public trust in our political system.

The Bill also clarifies the importance of the role to be played by the regulator, the Electoral Commission. The commission will now have a clear duty to monitor spending and donation controls and to ensure their compliance with the law. We want to prevent our political system from becoming one in which unaccountable groups spend millions attempting to influence the outcome of an election. The Bill is an important step towards achieving that, without undermining the ability of third parties to engage more broadly in the political process.

Let me now turn to part 3. Trade unions are influential participants in public life. They have an important role representing members’ interests both with specific employers and in wider public debate. The Government support that role. We also believe it is important that the public is confident that, when a union decides how to exercise its influence, all union members may choose to play a part. That is what the third part of the Bill is about. It will require trade unions visibly to demonstrate that they know who their members are and can contact them. The principle that unions must be able to contact their members is well established in legislation. We are building on an existing duty for unions to maintain an accurate and up-to-date register of members’ names and addresses.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

Is it specifically on part 3?

[Steve Brine]

Right on it.

[Mr Lansley]

Very good. I will give way.

[Steve Brine]

It seems perfectly sensible to ask the unions to keep a register of their members, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no undue administrative burden on smaller trade unions as a result of the measures in his Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

I am confident that the burden on trade unions will be very modest. As far as the certification officer is concerned, we are talking about only three additional members of staff as a consequence of all this. In future, unions will provide a membership audit certificate to the certification officer alongside their annual financial return. Unions with more than 10,000 members—this helps to answer my hon. Friend’s point about the smallest trade unions—will be required to appoint an independent third party, an assurer, to provide the certificate, which will state whether the union’s systems for maintaining the register meet the statutory requirements. That independent assurance will be important to provide confidence in large and complex membership records.

It will be the responsibility of the certification officer to make inquiries and to appoint an inspector to investigate possible discrepancies, if there are circumstances suggesting that a union has not complied with those requirements. That will complement the existing responsibilities for investigating complaints made by individual members. We expect that in most cases the inspector will be a member of the certification officer's staff, but it could be an expert third party.

The Bill sets out how assurers and appointed inspectors will be bound by duties of confidentiality in their handling of member data. Of course, existing safeguards in data protection and human rights legislation will apply in this case as they do elsewhere. Should the certification officer find a union to be non-compliant with these duties, he will make a declaration to that effect specifying where the union has failed to comply and the reasons for the declaration. In addition, he will be able to make a civil enforcement order, requiring the union to take steps to remedy the issue. However, prior to making a formal declaration and order, the certification officer will give the union an opportunity to make representations.

This is not about making it harder for trade unions to operate. We are not requiring unions to collect more data or change the way in which they keep membership registers. Nor are we amending the requirements on industrial action ballots. The requirement to keep a list of member names and addresses is distinct from information that a union must supply to an employer when balloting for industrial action.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I really must complete the speech; I am sorry.

Case law is now clear that minor or technical errors in such information are insufficient for a court to grant an injunction against industrial action. Furthermore, a statutory protection means that unions are only required to supply information to the employer that is in their possession at the time.

We will, though, work with both unions and employers to develop comprehensive guidance about their rights and responsibilities as a result of the new regime. Furthermore, although larger unions will be required to appoint an assurer to provide the membership audit certificate, those either in their first year or with fewer than 10,000 members will be able to self-certify.

I have heard the claim that these measures represent an intrusion into trade unions’ right to autonomy. Rules of operation will vary from one union to another. We are not interfering with that. Unions will continue to choose how they define a member, and we are deliberately not prescribing the processes that a union should adopt in their compilation and maintenance of member data. All we are doing is asking unions to provide an annual assurance that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that they know who their members are and how to contact them. I think members would be concerned if their unions felt unable to comply with that.

These measures will provide an assurance that trade unions—increasingly large and diverse membership organisations—know who their members are and can effectively engage with them. These are reasonable requirements. The Bill does not go further and give trade union members the right to exercise a deliberate choice whether to participate in a trade union’s political fund or its subscription to party membership. I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to offer him the opportunity provided by the Bill to undertake exactly the deliberate choice that he said members of trade unions should enjoy, but 10 weeks after sending him that letter, I have had no response.

The Bill, as I have shown, will do practical things to extend transparency and accountability in relation to third parties. Lobbyists, third parties and trade unions all play an important role in the political process, by helping to inform policy making and ensuring that views are heard by those who are in the Government, Parliament and beyond. That should continue, but we also want to prevent our political system from ending up as we see in other parts of the world, where unaccountable groups spend millions attempting to influence the political system. We want to be open, transparent and clear about who influences the political system, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

We have already discussed the importance of lobbying groups in providing the sort of information we require to do our job, but if we are to regulate them, they have to know what they are being regulated for. In closing, let me give a couple of examples.

I can think of many lobbying organisations that, because of the position I previously had in the Northern Ireland Assembly, had to see through many of the expenditure cuts that came as a result of decisions made here. They probably attached a lot of the blame for the consequences to me, and when it comes to the election, I am sure they will make that point. Does that sort of campaigning have to be declared as controlled expenditure, or is it simply what we would generally expect from organisations that have control over welfare changes, capital spending cuts and so forth?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me intervene to disappoint the hon. Gentleman a little by pointing out that the bit of text he referred to in the Bill relating to what is defined as being for electoral purposes is exactly the same text as currently applies under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is what the current law provides, and it is simply being repeated in the context of this new Bill. The hon. Gentleman is thus attacking the Bill for doing something that already exists in law.

[Sammy Wilson]

It may well already be in law, but there are now additional penalties attached and additional requirements made on the organisations. For that reason, it does make the situation difficult for these groups.

Let me provide another example. One group that is not affected by the Bill but nevertheless contacted me is the Christian Institute in Northern Ireland, which has taken a very strong view on gay marriage. Over the last six months, it has lobbied heavily on the issue, which might well have influenced how people who support the Christian Institute will vote in future elections. Is that organisation, then, to be subject to all the scrutiny of its expenditure and so forth—not just for this election, but for future ones—and to all the uncertainty attached to that?

The Leader of House says that the provisions are already in place, but there are additional requirements for controlled expenditure to be declared and if it is not declared, it will count as an offence. If an offence has been committed, the organisations will of course find themselves either having to defend themselves in court or simply accept the allegations made against them. Again, that will have a chilling effect on their activities. If they have to defend themselves in court, it will lead to additional expenditure and it might also mean that the organisation will be tarnished. That is one reason why many of these third-party organisations are saying, “This is bad legislation; this is going to damage us; the legislation should be voted against.”

The Bill does not deal properly with the ordinary lobby organisations: it does not include all their lobbying activities. It does include the activities of third-party organisations. Members may or may not approve of those activities, but the fact is that such organisations can currently engage in them, but will be dissuaded from doing so in the future. For those reasons, we will vote against Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I entirely agree. That is exactly what happened, and, as I have said, it involved all parties. The campaigners from those other countries who did not benefit from the same open, democratic ways, and from the strengths of civil society, found it particularly striking. They shared with me their experiences of fighting for rights in places such as Zimbabwe. I am sorry to say this, but the Bill has a whiff of Zimbabwe about it. [Interruption.] It appears to be nothing more than a cynical and ill-thought-out attempt to clamp down on the challenge that is presented to all of us when we stand for Parliament.

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer this question. In 2005, when he conducted his campaign with World Vision, electoral law required any expenditure for electoral purposes to be registered. Was any part of that expenditure registered for electoral purposes, or did he not seek to promote the electoral success of any party or candidate in his campaign, in which case all the expenditure would have remained outwith the regulatory structure?

[Stephen Doughty]

The real issue is that many charities will observe the lack of clarity in the Bill, and, unable to gain access to the legal advice and expertise that is needed to deal with it, will effectively be muzzled. That is what is really going on: a clampdown on charities and community organisations. At the same time, the Bill does not deal with the likes of Lynton Crosby—the rich and already powerful members of society.

As I have said, the main issue is that the Bill does nothing to clamp down on the activities of the big lobbying industry and make them more transparent. In fact, it excludes most of the lobbyists and most of the lobbying, which strikes me as completely pointless. We have all heard how the Bill will capture only 1% of the meetings organised with lobbyists. The idea that the only crucial lobbying that goes on is in meetings with Ministers and permanent secretaries is, frankly, ridiculous. Without wanting to be disrespectful, it is often the least experienced and most junior officials and advisers in Government who are the most susceptible to undue influence, whereas, in contrast, most of the Ministers—of all parties—and most of the permanent secretaries whom I have dealt with have taken a critical-thinking approach to the lobbying and approaches they receive, whether from Oxfam, the CBI or other interest groups.

We have heard that Spinwatch has called the Bill “a sham”, and that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has said that it

“would not even come close to preventing the alleged breaches of parliamentary standards that have seen this legislation rushed through.”

The Bill does nothing to open up this part of the industry, which is the majority of it, or to make it more transparent. That makes it all the more sinister that the latter parts of the Bill could result in shutting down the type of influence and activity—the raising of voices on behalf of ordinary people and causes lacking in money, power and existing relationships—that is needed to balance out those big influences.

We have heard from many colleagues on both sides of the House of the many organisations and causes that are worried about this Bill. I know from personal experience how seriously charities and campaign coalitions take their existing obligations. I believe they already often err on the side of caution, rather than risk being seen to be operating in any way that could open them up to allegations of partisanship or undue influence. I am therefore very worried on a number of fronts about the ill-thought-out and unclear provisions in part 2.

First, staff costs and overheads could be included in what has to be declared, meaning that larger charities might have to pull back to avoid hitting the lower spending limits set out in the Bill. Secondly, I am deeply concerned about the possible impact on smaller charities, a number of whom have commented during the course of this debate about how they will not be able to cope, from a legal perspective, when they are less well resourced. I was lucky to have the support of an excellent and experienced legal department when such questions arose in Oxfam, making sure that we met our legal objectives. That is simply not available to many smaller charities and community organisations and that will result, essentially, in their muzzling.

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for some time in the middle of September?

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

The business for the week commencing 2 September is as follows:

Monday 2 September—Launch of the second report from the Procedure Committee on private Members’ Bills, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the future for postal services in rural areas, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report, “Get Britain Cycling”. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 3 September—Second Reading of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.

Wednesday 4 September—Opposition day [6th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 September—A general debate on high-cost credit, followed by a general debate on the north-east independent economic review report. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 September—Private Members’ Bills.



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

Monday 9 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 10 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 2).

Wednesday 11 September—Conclusion in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name Opposed Private Business for consideration.

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

Friday 13 September—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 and 12 September will be:

Monday 9 September—General debate on an e-petition relating to age-related tax allowances.

Thursday 12 September—General debate on UK trade and investment.



As this is the last business questions before the summer recess, may I, on behalf of the House, thank all its staff for their hard work? I hope that they have a good and very well-deserved break before we return at the beginning of September.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the first two weeks in September.

It is Nelson Mandela’s 95th birthday today, and I am sure that all Members across the House will want to wish him well as he fights his illness in hospital.

Last week I said that this Government have a blind spot when it comes to women. The Leader of the House told me that he did not agree, so what does he have to say about yesterday’s mocking of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who was miaowed and clawed at behind her back while speaking in the Chamber because of the outfit she was wearing? Does he think that this boorish behaviour by his Back Benchers is acceptable?

As the House adjourns for the summer recess this afternoon, may I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all the House staff for the support provided to Members and their staff throughout the year? We are very grateful to all House staff for the support that they give us.

Before everyone heads off to their constituencies for the recess, I would like to give some end-of-term awards. The Man of the People award goes to the Chancellor for his posh burgers and mockney accent. The Bungle of the Year award goes to the Defence Secretary for his spectacularly bad attempt at making a statement to the House on Army reserves. The most contested category, Smear of the Year, was this week snatched by the late entry by the Health Secretary, ably assisted by his barnacle-scraper, Lynton Crosby.

With the Lords due to sit until the end of July and the Commons not due to return until early September, it is clear that this Parliament is no more joined up than this Government. With the two Houses now completely out of kilter, it is practically impossible for Joint Committees to meet. Does the Leader of the House really think that that is a desirable state of affairs, and will he make sure that this practice is brought to an end?

I note that we are to discuss the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in the first two weeks back. The Bill is not even 24 hours off the press but it is already being derided by campaigners, charities and lobbyists alike for failing to regulate over 80% of the industry. The Government’s Bill is a cheap, partisan attack on Opposition funding. It is constructed solely to divert attention from the real lobbying scandals of their dodgy donors dinners in Downing street.

It has been a bad week for Australians both in the Ashes and in No. 10. At Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, the Prime Minister once more pointedly avoided answering the question of whether he had discussed the plain packaging of cigarettes with Lynton Crosby. The Leader of the House may remember saying when he was Health Secretary:

“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets.”

Why has he changed his mind on this issue? I wonder whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who tweeted yesterday:

“I’ve seen how election strategists drive current policy & simply untrue to suggest otherwise. It’s why we must know who else pays them”.

Quite so. It is clearly now in the public interest that the House is given full information about Lynton Crosby’s influence. At a minimum, he should publish his client list immediately. Will the Leader of the House support our calls for an inquiry into whether the ministerial code has been broken?

In his hysterical attacks on trade unions in the past few weeks, the Prime Minister has been emulating Senator McCarthy, but this week it has been more like Big Brother from “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. In that masterful novel, George Orwell wrote that the Party’s slogan was:

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

I think that we might just have found the Conservative party’s new motto.

We may be living in Tory Orwellian times in which the Government think that Newspeak trumps reality, but we will not let their propaganda go unchecked. They can make all the claims they like about the NHS, but we know that it was they who did not act on 14 failing trusts. They can pretend that plan A is working, but we know that we have had a weaker recovery than during the great depression and that long-term unemployment is at a 17-year high. They can blame anyone other than themselves for as long as they like, but the British people will not be fooled. If the Conservatives want to play Orwellian games for the next two years, they can carry on as they did last week, but they should not think for a minute that they will get away with it.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am not sure whether, in the midst of what she said, there were any requests relating to the future business, but I will try to answer the points that she raised.

Most pleasurably, I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our congratulations to ex-President Mandela on his 95th birthday. He is an inspiration and an extraordinary man. The extraordinary nature of his capacities is further illustrated by the promising progress in his health. That is something in which we can all take pleasure.

The hon. Lady asked about the relationship between sittings in this House and in the other place. I am happy to discuss the operation of Joint Committees with colleagues across both Houses. That is something that we should certainly look at. However, it is for this House and the other place to determine when they sit. The other place does not sit in September, whereas we rise earlier for the summer and sit in September. We have different approaches, but they are not necessarily disjointed because there are differences in the flow of business in the two Houses that make them perfectly sensible.

The hon. Lady talked about the lobbying Bill, which was published yesterday. It will indeed have its Second Reading and pass through Committee in the first two weeks back in September. I was surprised by what she said; I do not understand how the Bill can be an attack on Opposition funding since it says nothing about Opposition funding. The only thing that is in the Bill—

[Ms Eagle]

Come on!

[Mr Lansley]

It is not in the Bill. Let me make that clear to the hon. Lady.

I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week because he said in a speech that he wanted the participation of trade union members in the political funds of trade unions to be a deliberate choice. If that is what he wants, the Bill is available as a legislative framework to enable it to happen. If he believes in it, he should be willing to legislate for it. We have made him that offer and he should respond to it. In practical terms, if he wants to take up that offer and demonstrate that he means what he says, he needs to come back to us in the next three or four weeks to enable those amendments to be available for the Committee stage in September.

The hon. Lady talked about the NHS. I have listened to the exchanges, but the shadow Leader of the House should not have entered into the argument about our not doing anything in relation to the 14 trusts. I know about the matter because I have been Secretary of State for Health and shadow Secretary of State for Health. I was shadow Secretary of State when the then Secretary of State and Minister of State stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that Mid Staffs was an isolated incident and that nothing comparable was happening anywhere else in the NHS. They dismissed the idea that there were systemic problems in the NHS—they waved it away. I stood at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition on 30 November 2009 and asked why the then Secretary of State was dismissing the problems at the Basildon and Thurrock hospitals and saying that nothing would be done about them.

When I was Secretary of State, I stood at the Dispatch Box and made it clear that we were taking responsibility by moving NHS trusts towards foundation trust status not on the basis of their finances and governance, but on the basis of achieving quality. I said that we would use the NHS Trust Development Authority to make that happen. Agreements were put in place with NHS trusts to make that happen. I am sorry, but I will not take any lectures from the Labour party on that issue.

I will also not accept lessons from the Labour party on standardised packaging, which again relates to my former role as Secretary of State for Health. I saw what the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Cabinet Secretary yesterday. I am afraid that it proceeds from a complete misunderstanding or misapprehension of the position. As Secretary of State for Health, I made no bid to the then Leader of the House for a place for such legislation in the Queen’s Speech for this Session. Why was that? As I said in the consultation that I launched on standardised packaging, I had an open mind. My successor as Secretary of State and other Health Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and said that the Government have continued not to make a decision. As there was no bid from the Department of Health for a place in the Queen’s Speech, there cannot, by definition, have been any decision to take it out. I am afraid that this has all proceeded from a misunderstanding.

To be more cheerful, I hope the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) enjoys the sunshine in Wallasey over the summer. When she is thinking about the Opposition day debate, I am sure she will find that she still has a number of possible subjects to choose from in September. Perhaps she will choose to have a debate to celebrate the Government’s cutting net migration by a third, or a debate to celebrate the fact that the latest unemployment figures are down and employment is up, with 1.3 million more new jobs in the private sector. We are creating jobs in the private sector nearly five times as fast as jobs are being lost in the public sector. Perhaps she will choose a debate to celebrate the crime survey statistics published this morning that show a year-on-year reduction of 9%, taking the figures down to their lowest level since the survey began. That is all being achieved under this Government.

Finally, the hon. Lady talked about a motto. Let me remind her that at the Labour party conference last year, its motto was apparently going to be “one nation”. I have looked, but in this calendar year in this Chamber the Leader of the Opposition has never uttered the words “one nation”. We know why he has not done so. The Labour party is not a one-nation party; it is a trade union party, not the party of one nation. It is owned by the trade unions and it does not represent the people of this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is now 13 months since the brutal murder of my constituent Eystna Blunnie, and her unborn daughter, who died at the hands of her ex-boyfriend. Domestic violence continues to be a worrying issue in Essex, with a 14% increase in prosecutions in 2011-12. The Crown Prosecution Service has acknowledged that it should have done more in this case. May we have an urgent debate on domestic violence to stop such tragedies ever happening again?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will join my hon. Friend in his shock, and that of his constituents, at what happened to his constituent and her unborn daughter. It was a sad and tragic event. It is precisely for the reasons he describes that the Government are doing everything they can to provide support to victims of domestic violence and abuse. The Home Office has produced the violence against women and girls action plan, including a ring-fenced budget of nearly £40 million for multi-agency risk assessment conferences operating over 250 areas across the country. We want an end to all violence against women and girls, and we expect every report to be taken seriously, every victim to be treated with dignity and every investigation to be conducted thoroughly and professionally.

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

When will the Leader of the House bring forward his proposals for improving the Government’s e-petition system by bringing it in-house and establishing a petitions Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I hope to be able to bring forward proposals on the basis of consensus. I welcome the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, which is published today. However, I do not share its view that petitions could fuel cynicism. I think it is demonstrable from the Hansard Society’s latest audit of political engagement that the public recognise that the House is debating the issues that matter to them more. The petitions process and the work of the Backbench Business Committee have been instrumental in making that happen. I note, for example, that of the 21 petitions that have reached the 100,000 signature threshold, 20 have either been debated or are scheduled for debate. We can do more and I have said that we can. I am sure we can do that not by transferring petitions to Parliament, with the Government standing back and leaving the process alone, but by engaging together so that the public can petition their Parliament while also seeking action and a response from their Government. I am sure we can work together to make that happen.

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

In the light of the poll just published by the Bruges Group, which shows that 71% of those expressing a preference said that Britain would be better off being a member of the European Free Trade Association than remaining a member of the European Union, may we please have a debate on the potential benefits of becoming a member of EFTA?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that if we make progress and get the European Union (Referendum) Bill—which is currency before the House, but which the Labour party, not having voted against it on Second Reading, is now seeking to frustrate by filibustering in Committee, although I am sure Labour will not succeed in that—we will enable a debate not only in this House but in the country so that the people can make a decision. From my point of view, one of the instrumental questions in that debate will be about how the people of this country believe in free trade and see its advantages. That can be achieved, not least through a renegotiation of our membership of the European Union. As my old boss of many years ago, Lord Tebbit, said, he voted for a Common Market in 1975 and he would like to have one.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on football governance? Football League appears to be incapable of sticking to its own rules and policies. It has allowed Coventry football club to be taken away and moved to Northampton without having seen a plan for its timely return, and it allowed player registrations to be moved out of the company registered with the league itself through the golden share, against its own rules. If Football League is incapable of sticking to its own rules, the Government should look into that. Will he find time for a debate?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) had to say to the Business Secretary. He and other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), have raised these issues at Business questions in the past, and I know they raise strong feelings. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but I know that on a number of occasions there has been a compelling case, for many reasons, for the House to consider football governance. It is also something that Members might like to approach the Backbench Business Committee about. I will also talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and see what she can do to respond to hon. Members on this issue.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Yesterday the Minister for Schools announced a welcome increase in the pupil premium, targeted at children in difficult circumstances. However, Somerset county council is proposing cuts to its school transport budget, which will hit low-income families, and wants to ask schools to cover 50% of the school transport costs for those young people from the pupil premium they receive. That seems particularly mean and insensitive at a time when those Conservative councillors are giving themselves a 3% pay rise, so will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate? Does he agree that it is unacceptable to claim the pupil premium for that purpose?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend invites me to enter into a debate on decisions that are properly those for Somerset county council. If she wants to raise this issue on behalf of her constituents, it would be appropriate to do so on the Adjournment, so perhaps she can seek that opportunity. However, I entirely share the sense of achievement that yesterday’s statement takes us to the point where we are fulfilling the coalition agreement to provide an additional £2.5 billion in support of the pupil premium for the benefit of the most disadvantaged pupils. [Interruption.] I would have thought that that would be something to celebrate on the Opposition Benches, but I was struck by how few Opposition Members were able to come to the Chamber yesterday and express even a sense of appreciation for the resources being provided to support some of the children who are most in need of additional support in our schools.

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

Will the Leader of the House take the time to study early-day motion 336, tabled in my name, on Crossrail step-free access?

[That this House strongly welcomes the construction of Crossrail but notes with concern that seven stations on the new Crossrail line, Seven Kings, Manor Park, Maryland, Hanwell, Langley, Iver and Taplow are not planned to be step-free to platforms; notes that despite the assurances given by the Mayor of London (MoL) to the London Assembly on 14 March 2012 that full disabled access will be a facility at each of the Crossrail stations in Redbridge, no estimates have been made of the costs and benefits and no plans put forward by the MoL or Transport for London (TfL) to introduce step-free access at Seven Kings station; calls on the Government and TfL to ensure that funding is made available urgently to ensure step-free access at Seven Kings; considers that the lack of planned step-free access on parts of Crossrail undermines the Government’s aim that by 2025, disabled people have access to transportation on an equal basis with others; believes that in the context of an ageing population, the benefits of accessible transport to disabled and older transport users, parents and non-disabled transport users outweigh the costs of installing lifts; further believes that the exclusion of disabled and older passengers from their local Crossrail station contributes to the marginalisation of disabled and older people in public life; and further calls on the Government, Network Rail and TfL to make Crossrail a truly accessible rail line.]

In that context, may we have an early debate on the failure of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to keep his promise that there would be step-free access at Seven Kings station in my constituency, and on the decisions taken by Transport for London over the past three years to stop work on the lifts at Newbury Park underground station?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course look at the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. These matters are specifically the responsibility of the Mayor of London, so I cannot promise a debate on them, but in order to help him I will convey his remarks to the Mayor and see what his reply might be.

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

May I add my congratulations to Nelson Mandela on his 95th birthday? He is a truly remarkable man.

May I tempt the Leader of the House to give us a date for the Water Bill? We were expecting its Second Reading this month, but I note from the business forecast that it is not even scheduled for September. We have heard alarming reports today of possible disruption to our water supplies if there is a drought, and we are still awaiting the reservoir safety guidance from the Government, so it would be helpful if we could have a date.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is always difficult for me to resist temptation, but in this instance I am afraid I cannot offer her any guidance on future business beyond what I have already announced. As she knows, however, it is a signal achievement that we have brought forward the Water Bill, including the much sought-after provisions that will enable flood insurance to be obtained by those at risk.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

A recent report has shown that the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust was the fourth worst performing trust in terms of accident and emergency services, yet five of its chief executives have left over the past 10 years and received substantial pay-offs. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wrong to reward failure? When may we have a statement on these matters?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been assiduous in coming to the House to make statements on how he is trying to secure the best quality of care for patients and tackling failures, some of which are of very long-standing. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have visited Leicester University hospitals in the past, and I am very familiar with the circumstances that he has described. I will not go into detail, but I will say that if we are going to make the progress that we need to make in many of our hospitals, we need to bring new leadership to the fore in the NHS. Some of our measures to promote a leadership college in the NHS were particularly designed to bring more clinicians to the point at which they will be able to take chief executive posts across the NHS. There are some excellent examples, including Julie Moore at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, and we need more like her who are in a position to give the hospitals the leadership that they need.

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

Plymouth university’s Peninsula medical and dental schools have been a great success, and the university is keen to expand its excellent health student offer by establishing a new school of pharmacy to help to address health inequalities in the region. Some might say that we are producing too many pharmacists in the UK, but may we have a debate on pharmacy schools, to give us a better understanding of which regions are losing out?

[Mr Lansley]

I have had the benefit of visiting the Peninsula medical school, and seen some of the work being done there alongside Derriford hospital and the dental hospital in Truro. I wish it well in its work. We are working towards reforming pharmacists’ pre-registration training in line with the recommendations of the modernising pharmacy careers programme board. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but my hon. Friend is right to suggest that there is a case for a discussion on pharmacy numbers and training. The House has not considered the matter for some time, and it would be relevant to do so.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Thousands of people —including, I hope, everyone in this Chamber—will be heading off shortly for their holidays and are likely to use the motorways. May we have a statement about the regulation of motorway service stations, because all of us who regularly use the motorways know that getting refreshments there is an enormous rip-off. Buying petrol there is an enormous rip-off. Somebody should be regulating these motorway services; it is most unfair to people with families who simply cannot afford to eat at them.

[Mr Lansley]

I can feel a John Major moment coming on, if the right hon. Lady recalls that.

I will mention the issue that the right hon. Lady has quite properly raised with my colleagues in the Department for Transport—not least because they might have a better answer than I do. For both the public services and the private sector, we always need to look where there is any degree of monopoly of supply. It is important for such issues to be looked at from time to time by the Office of Fair Trading.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Some months ago, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement on very slow departmental responses to parliamentary questions. My right hon. Friend worked his magic back then, so I wonder whether he could apply the same lubricant to the Ministry of Justice, which is now six weeks overdue in responding to constituent inquiries, including a named day question.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know the importance I attach to prompt responses to Members and I have sent the Procedure Committee some of the latest data on performance in the last Session. I can tell my hon. Friend that his question to the Ministry of Justice has been answered today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Major health problems of diabetes, dementia, cancer, heart and stroke challenge us all. Health is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. Would the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate to facilitate an exchange of information from the devolved Administrations to enable a joint strategy for all to be developed for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I know from personal experience that the devolved Administrations and the four countries of the United Kingdom work closely together on health matters and co-ordinate closely, while respecting the devolution settlement. I will see what plans Ministers from the Department of Health have on the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raises and ask them to respond to him.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Doctors and other professionals are held to account for failures in their performance. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to discuss how senior, highly paid council officers can be held to account for the profound damage they cause to education and other services when they leave a trail of incompetence and then just wander away?

[Mr Lansley]

I can see how people might feel strongly about particular instances of that, but this is happening in the context of a democratically elected organisation. Councils are accountable to their electors, and the officers of any council are directly accountable to the members of that council and the leadership of that council. It is really to councillors themselves and the leaders of a council that my hon. Friend should look on this matter.

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

The Leader of the House may be aware of the disappointing increase in the number of service personnel diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that we sent these service personnel into dangerous conflict areas, we must have a duty of care to look after them when they come home. May we have a debate to assess the size of the problem and what we can do to help our service personnel in their moment of need?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware and I know many Members are very much aware and concerned about issues relating to the mental health of service personnel and veterans. The Prime Minister commissioned a report from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—the “Fighting Fit” report—and we have implemented every single one of its 13 recommendations. That puts us in a much stronger place to provide support, and I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Defence will continue to respond on this issue.

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

With all secondary schools in Brentford and Isleworth being either good or outstanding, I want to commend the work that head teachers and the Secretary of State for Education have done to improve standards. A recent CBI report last month, however, said that 39% of businesses were struggling to recruit STEM workers. May we have a debate on creating a better career service in schools and on how to engage more businesses in education so that we get the right skills for the future?

[Mr Lansley]

No doubt my hon. Friend will recall a recent debate on careers services that was initiated by the Backbench Business Committee. I agree with her about the importance of this issue. I think that the promotion of traineeships by my colleagues at the Department for Education will be of particular benefit in improving the skills, for employment purposes, of people who are as yet unable to gain access to apprenticeships or college education, but we are also supporting employee engagement in skills through, for instance, the employee ownership of skills pilot. Thirty-seven companies were successful in round 1, and Government investment of up to £90 million was matched by £115 million of private investment.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate about the relationship between general practitioners and the Department for Work and Pensions? My constituent Fiona Howells is in a really difficult quandary. Atos has decided that she should no longer receive any benefits because, it says, she is fit for work. She is appealing against that decision, which is fair enough, but she has been told that she must provide evidence from her GP. She has been to her GP, who has told her that Bro Taf local medical committee has declared that GPs are not in a position to administer or police the benefits system, and consequently should write no letters—no letters at all—for their patients for tribunal purposes. That strikes me as very callous and unfair. It means that not only are people’s crutches being kicked away, but the carpet is being pulled from underneath them.

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman has not already raised the issue with the DWP, I shall be glad to secure a reply relating to those circumstances. However, the management of the processes involved in medical assessment for benefits has improved following the Harrington reviews. The Government are continuing to consider the important “fitness for work” report by Dame Carol Black and David Frost—which concerns, in particular, issues relating to GPs and helping people back into work—and hope to introduce measures as a result.

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

It has not been a bad week for the Australians when it comes to rugby league. They won the women’s, armed forces, police and student world cups in the festival of world cups, while France won the wheelchair world cup. There are exactly 100 days to go until the men’s rugby league world cup, which will be the first major sporting tournament in this country since the London 2012 Olympics. May we have a statement from the Sports Minister about Government support, and will the Prime Minister agree to adopt “Jerusalem” as the anthem for England?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us about both those rugby league world cups. I look forward to watching the men’s rugby league event in the autumn. He may wish to raise the other issues during Culture, Media and Sport questions on the Thursday of the week when we return from the recess.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to our exchange last week about a debate on Prime Minister’s questions, may I ask whether we could, during that debate, consider renaming them “Prime Minister’s answers”? The Prime Minister seems to think that the possessive apostrophe means that his job is to ask the Leader of the Opposition and other Members questions rather than to answer them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I thought that the Prime Minister gave excellent answers to questions yesterday, but if there is a problem with Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Gentleman might like to worry about who is on his own Front Bench rather than on ours.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the revolving door that exists between the Financial Conduct Authority and the financial sector that it is supposed to regulate? It was announced today that Julia Dunn had moved from the FCA to Nationwide, and on Monday it was announced that Christina Sinclair was moving from the FCA to Barclays. Many small businesses that were mis-sold interest rate derivative products need to be reassured about the fact that the designer of the redress scheme has moved to one of the main sellers of those products.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with my hon. Friends at the Treasury. As he will, I hope, have seen in the course of the debate on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, they are very exercised about these matters and are determined to ensure the highest standards of conduct in the banking and financial services sector, following up on the parliamentary commission.

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

We would be outraged if a black person was refused membership of a sports club based on their skin colour, so please may we have a debate on why it is acceptable for Muirfield to ban women from joining its club, and does not that bigoted bunker mentality make the British Open less than open and less than British?

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Just say yes.

[Mr Lansley]

Before I even have a chance to say anything—

[Mr Speaker]

He is incorrigible.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is incorrigible.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady: I think it is entirely reprehensible. We may not be able to have a debate about it, but she has raised the issue and she is right to do so.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May we have a debate about the procurement policies of Government agencies? Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, but are often excluded from tendering for public sector contracts, although there is some good practice, and I am sure the Leader of the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to Rugby borough council who last week received an award from the Federation of Small Businesses in recognition of its small-business friendly procurement policy.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I do take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rugby borough council on its award from the FSB. The point he raises is very important, and that is why we are taking forward recommendations in Lord Young’s report to simplify and standardise bidding, payment and advertising of contracts, and to reduce complexity costs and inconsistency when trying to sell to more than one local authority. That will include the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy such as prequalification questionnaires for small tenders. We hope to ensure greater access for SMEs to all the procurement that is available across the public sector.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Following yesterday’s performance by the Prime Minister—and bearing in mind that when we return in September for three days of the second week we will discuss not any of the issues around lack of growth in our economy, but how our politics is done—can we have any confidence at all that he and this Government will take seriously the real concerns about the way the Conservative party is funded? My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made it clear that the Labour party is going to deal with its issues; when are this Government going to deal with their issues around party funding?

[Mr Lansley]

I am quite interested that the hon. Gentleman says he wants to talk about issues relating to funding in September. I have just announced business relating to transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration. That will be at the forefront of business here. The point he makes is that he does not want to talk about growth in the economy, and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not raise issues relating to growth in the economy and employment. Why? Because we are seeing growth: we are seeing increases in employment and we are seeing unemployment coming down because we are seeing a healing economy, one that is in complete contrast to the earlier 7.2% reduction in gross domestic product, a consequence of the bust that happened under the last Government.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Payday lenders Wonga lend £1 million a year in Blaenau Gwent borough, so may we have a debate in Government time on support for the better value credit unions, to help vulnerable families?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Backbench Business Committee has selected a general debate on high-cost credit to take place on Thursday 5 September, and I am sure that will afford him an opportunity to make his points.

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

May we have a statement regarding the changing of the goalposts in relation to Remploy employees being able to make social enterprise bids in Coventry and Birmingham? Why have they been lumped together and put out to private tender?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has made two statements in relation to Remploy in recent weeks, but I will of course raise the point he mentions with her.

Bill Presented

Representation of the People Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1981 to amend the period of imprisonment which disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 99).

Points of Order

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the House attaches importance to accuracy and establishing the accuracy of events as quickly as possible. In that context, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) raised at Prime Minister’s questions the case of Mr and Mrs Goodwin, which he had raised previously on 27 February. He asserted that the Prime Minister had not replied to a letter from, or on behalf of, Mr and Mrs Goodwin. May I inform the House that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of Mr and Mrs Goodwin, who are his constituents, on 4 March, enclosing a letter on their behalf from a sister written on 28 February? I have here a copy of the Prime Minister’s reply to that letter from the hon. Member for Islwyn dated 11 April this year.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House has offered helpful information that is now on the record, and we should leave it there. [Interruption.] There is no matter of order for the Chair. It is not a debate. Information has been volunteered and we will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I would just like to make the point that I chose my words carefully in my question, which has been confirmed by Hansard. What I actually said was that the family had written to the Prime Minister and had not received a reply. That is correct—they have not received a reply. What the Leader of the House said about the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was accurate. There was a response, but it made no reference to the case whatsoever. I stand by those comments.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, if I may—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are not going to have a long debate on this; we have a lot of business to get through. I call the Leader of the House, briefly.

[Mr Lansley]

I have the Prime Minister’s letter of 11 April here. It is to the hon. Member for Islwyn, who wrote on behalf of his constituents, and I think we can assume that he passed it on to them. It relates specifically to Mr and Mrs Goodwin and replies to their circumstances.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

No, I have almost finished and others want to speak.

Every single one of us feels great pride whenever we enter or leave the Chamber, and we all believe that if politics works properly, we can make our world a better place.

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

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that there is something requiring a remedy, but he keeps telling the House that the problem has not occurred. Does he know of any circumstances in which the problem he purports to be trying to solve has actually arisen?

[Jon Trickett]

As I have said many times, the problem is the public perception that when an MP is earning several hundred thousands of pounds a year from a third-party commercial operation, they will take that into account when making a decision. I do not allege that any MP has so behaved, but the public believe—[Interruption.] Government Members can protest, but they will know, assuming they knock on doors at election time—perhaps they do not—what people say about us.

Working as an MP is the highest honour a democracy can bestow on us, so there should be no doubt in the public’s mind that we are placing every ounce of our intelligence, energy and loyalty at the service of the common good, not being diverted into defending our own private personal interests. For that reason, I hope the House can have a sensible debate, not a finger-pointing one, and even at this late stage support the motion.

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

On behalf of the Government, I ask the House to reject the motion.

I am interested in the contrast, which could not be more obvious, between this Opposition debate and the Bill we have just published. On the one hand, the Bill, the aim of which is to tackle a real issue, focuses on a specific potential problem concerning the transparency of third-party lobbying and third-party influences on the political system. By contrast, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has presented a flawed motion to which the House should object regardless of whether Members agree with the principle he has tried to enunciate. It also turns out, however, to be nothing other than an effort to fling mud. He says he is not trying to impugn anybody’s motives, that nobody has done anything wrong, that everything is absolutely fine and that the House has behaved wonderfully, but then he says that the House should be constrained. It makes no sense.

It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House the reason for the motion. It is chaff. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, what matters is the perception that the Labour party is in the pay of the trade unions, which control its policies, candidacies and leadership, which it bought; so to divert attention from that, which goes to the heart of this issue, the Labour party throws up this chaff.

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

Where they are aware of it, my constituents are concerned not about the perception, but about the reality: that the current Leader of the Opposition was not put there by a one man, one vote process and that Labour MPs were outvoted by the trade unions.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. Not only Labour MPs, but the Labour party membership, were outvoted by the trade unions, and nothing that the Leader of the Opposition is saying will change that. As far as I am aware, one third of the electoral college for the leadership of the Labour party will continue to be trade-union controlled, so if they can get a sufficiently large majority, they can control the leadership of the Labour party.

The speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth made no sense. I tried to listen to it and hear the argument, but if he wants to intervene and explain, even at this stage, I would be glad of that.

The motion is about regulating the ways that Members of the House work. As Leader of the House—that is one reason why I am responding to this debate—it is my view that proposals adopted by the House to regulate how Members behave should be the product of consultation across the House, and considered on the basis of proper scrutiny by relevant bodies, either in the House or externally. In this case, the Labour party has put forward a proposal without any such basis or advice to the House; procedurally it has gone about it the wrong way.

What is the real objective behind the motion? We should proceed in this House on the basis of trying to solve real problems. If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to talk about the issue, and the Labour party wants to get rid of the perception that those who are paid in this House are controlled by their paymasters, I have a simple proposition for the hon. Gentleman, which involves not taking money from the trade unions. That is not just a perception; the reality is that Labour’s interests are controlled by the trade unions. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to solve?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to reach a conclusion and bring the debate together, but I do not think he wants to be dependent on the policies and funding of the Labour party. This debate is about remuneration and second jobs in this House. I am sure the Leader of the House is desperate to get to that point.

[Mr Lansley]

I am trying to get to the argument, as I understood it, of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and his point about the public perception that where Members of the House are in receipt of money from outside organisations, they are in the control of those organisations. I do not think that is true and I want to know what the motion is trying to achieve. It does not ensure that Members spend any given amount of time working with their constituents. A paid directorship or consultancy for one or two hours a week would be ruled out by this motion, but if a Member was engaged in travelling the world, for example, to undertake speaking engagements on behalf of some other organisation, which took them away for weeks—[Interruption.] Apparently in the view of Opposition Members that is absolutely fine and would not interfere with their ability to look after their constituents at all.

The motion does not stop Members having second jobs; it simply tries to stop them having certain kinds of second jobs, which is rather bizarre. It imposes no limit on the amount of money Members can earn outside politics; it simply wants to stop them earning money in particular ways.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend has set out how what he considers to be the conflict issue has not been made into a real issue by the Opposition; it is just a hypothetical issue. There is also the issue of time. What is his view of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? He said:

“I devote around 60-70 hours to my duties as an MP, both national and constituency-related…After allowing for sleep, and family/social activities, there are another 30-40 hours available for my other work.”

[Mr Lansley]

My view is that as a result of the reforms, Members are accountable through the transparent registration of interests, which includes the amount of time they spend on those interests. They are accountable to their constituents through the register in a transparent way, and their constituents will judge them. The implication of what the hon. Member for Hemsworth was saying is that none of that has caused any problem and all is fine.

David Miliband was a director of Sunderland football club and engaged in other consultancies, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) may also be engaged in activities. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is a consultant to a company, which apparently is absolutely fine, as is the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who is in his place. I refer to those right hon. Members because apparently it is fine for them to do those things and it does not impinge on their constituents or responsibilities, yet the hon. Member for Hemsworth wants to stop them doing that. How absurd is that?

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that he notified each of those Members that he planned to refer to them in the debate?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have done that.

In our parliamentary democracy it is well established and accepted that many MPs have responsibilities beyond those of individual Back Benchers representing their constituents. There is nothing unusual about that. We do it as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and even in the distinguished role of Deputy Speaker of the House. Such responsibilities do not in any sense constrain Members of the House in being effective advocates and representatives on behalf of their constituents. I have not heard a serious suggestion that MPs should be barred from taking on responsibilities that go wider than their role as a constituency MP. The motion does not preclude Members from maintaining second jobs or paid outside interests; it merely sets out to impose a ban on a very specific type of employment.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that our main task is to restore the standing of politicians in the country? Most people in the country regard our wage as very handsome, and they expect people to do a full-time job if they are getting a full-time wage. It cannot be done the other way round if people are part-timing.

[Mr Lansley]

My view, and I think that of the hon. Member for Hemsworth and Members across the House, is that it is perfectly possible in addition to one’s responsibilities to one’s constituents, and to the House, to undertake additional activities. We do that as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and in our constituencies in all sorts of ways. We do it in charitable work and, as has been said, when engaged in authorship and advisory positions, looking after charities and in all-party groups. If one looks at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, one sees that people the length and breadth of this House are engaged in a wide variety of additional activities. It was held to be in the interests of the House that that wide range of activities should not be unduly constrained, but that Members should be completely transparent about their activities and interests, whether they are or are not remunerated, and how much time they take.

This issue was previously considered by an independent expert body—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Opposition Front Benchers may like to recall that that Committee argued that those who wished to be full-time Members should be free to do so, but that it considered it

“desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists.”

The Opposition’s proposal could lead to the very thing that on this very day we are trying better to control.

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

The motion mentions two types of corporate structures, but the hon. Member for Hemsworth was talking about payment as a principle. That ignores partnerships or self-employment. The motion is flawed. I know the hon. Gentleman was introducing it as best he could, but does that not show the lack of understanding of corporate structures and business overall among Labour Members?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I fear Labour also misunderstands the nature of the relationship of a director to a company, and, where a director is a Member of Parliament, the relationship between those two responsibilities. Someone may act as a director and have a responsibility to the company as a whole in certain areas—I freely admit that for one year in the more than 16 years I have been in this House, I was a director of a company while also a Member of Parliament. I entered into an explicit contract that I would not undertake any activities for that company that drew on my interests and responsibilities as an MP—[Interruption.] No, we did not publish the contract, but I entered into a contract that made it clear that where there was any conflict of interest, the company would expect me to declare it and remove myself from any activity with the company concerned. I was very clear about that, so the question of a conflict of interest between my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and to the company would not arise.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has described beautifully how the contract he drew up with the company protected the interest of the company, but not how it protected the interests of this House or of his constituents. Even the right hon. Gentleman must know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the point.

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, I was explaining to the House how it is perfectly straightforward not to prejudice one’s responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. Members in this House are very clear about that and that is why such matters are published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fact that the hon. Lady has stood up and said that he who pays the piper calls the tune will be an entertaining thought for us to take forward and I look forward to my hon. Friends making that very clear.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth knows that I have written to the Leader of the Opposition about the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, published today, to say that if he and his colleagues wish to follow through on the principle initiated by the Leader of the Opposition that members of trade unions should be able to exercise a deliberate choice about their participation in a political fund, the Bill is available. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come forward and say whether or not he will do that. If he does not, we will know that it was all rhetoric with no follow-through.

The conclusion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that Members of Parliament should remain free to have paid employment unrelated to their role as MPs. That was widely accepted, and I have seen no evidence or argument that questions the validity of the conclusion and the hon. Gentleman mentioned no individual case that prejudiced that conclusion. We have clear rules on lobbying and the registration of interests that were put before the House by the previous Labour Government and agreed in April 2009. As we heard, the hon. Member for Hemsworth, who was on the Government Benches at that time, supported that and was against the exclusion of other earnings. The then Government did not go further down that path and they were right not to do so.

We have mechanisms for investigating any alleged breach of the rules and proper procedures for taking action where necessary. The Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) is in his place and if he wished, he could take action—although I suspect he would not need to do so, as no case arises. I do not think we have any lack of rules that would enable us to act when any conflict of interest took place. We do not need new and arbitrary rules.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition shows through today’s motion that he does not really understand how business works? He said a year or two ago, if I remember correctly, that he would like more entrepreneurs on the Labour Benches. When we look across the House, we have to ask how many people on those Benches started a business and got it going. There is a small number, but not many. It is quite clear from the motion that they do not understand. I have been a publisher since the age of 25 and I am a director of the company I set up then; I do not think that that harms my ability to represent my constituents in this House.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I was rather disappointed because the implication of the motion seems to be that if someone is in business, they ought specifically to be excluded from being able to pursue those interests in this House. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was perfectly happy for people in all sorts of profession to continue—doctors, farmers, lawyers and, presumably, architects. There are all sorts of partnerships and a sole trader or partner would be able to continue to work in their interests, but a director of a company would apparently not be able to do so. I presume that he would exclude paid directors of companies that are limited by guarantee, which are often not-for-profit organisations. I fail to see why so many such organisations, which do good work, should be precluded from having any Member of Parliament participating in them.

The motion refers to the

“wider regulatory framework for second jobs”.

I failed to hear in the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech what he meant by that, so perhaps we will hear some more about it from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when he concludes the debate.

There are practical issues that mean that the proposal is flawed. It refers to a director but not to an employee of a company, and it does not refer to partners—trustees have been mentioned. A range of circumstances have been ignored and left out, and the effort is to preclude directorships specifically. It refers to “consultancies”, although that is undefined, and apparently being an adviser would be okay. Or would every adviser be treated as a consultant? If we put the word “adviser” into the motion, instead of referring to consultants, it would no doubt extend widely among those on the Labour Benches, but apparently that is okay—[Interruption.] I will not go through every entry in the register, as I have already done that, but there are many circumstances in which Members are advisers to organisations. Apparently, I do not understand whether they are consultants or not.

As I have said, many professions, including many that are very time consuming—there are Members in the Chamber who consume quite a bit of time in writing books and articles and taking part in broadcast activities, but that seems to be perfectly okay—are ignored.

I cannot see from the motion who would police the new rules. Who would define who was a director for this purpose? Who would undertake the difficult task of deciding what was a consultancy? I cannot imagine the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would welcome the task of monitoring the provisions—we might hear whether she would. Do we need a new quango? Would Members rather the function be given to IPSA—[Interruption.] I think that was an ironic cheer from Opposition Members. IPSA considered the matter in its latest report and stated, perhaps with a moment’s regret, that it was not within its remit. It then made an ex cathedra statement about it anyway—

[Ian Lucas]

Ex cathedra?

[Mr Lansley]

Well, IPSA is a bit cathedral-like, is it not? A bit papal, really.

IPSA considered the issue and, although it decided it was not within its remit, said that

“the proportion of MPs with significant outside earnings is small.”

At least IPSA agrees with the hon. Member for Hemsworth that there is not a problem, but, like most people, it imagines that when there is no problem it is not necessary to find a solution.

The solution—the key to which is in the Bill published today—is transparency. Members are free to divide their time between their different and varied responsibilities. They represent constituents, scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account and pursue the interests of their party—all those things take up a lot of Members’ time—but they must judge how to balance and allocate their time. Individual Members will be accountable through the register for where their interests lie and to their constituents for how they undertake their responsibilities.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Should this not be an issue for the electorates and constituencies concerned? It seems to me to set a dangerous precedent to try to impose some sort of central authority.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Transparency is key. If there is any adverse perception to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth is referring, we should make it clear that the register is absolutely transparent and that people can look to see that Members do not undertake activities that conflict with their responsibilities to their constituents and in this House.

We can dismiss the issue of earnings, because clearly Opposition Members are very happy for people to earn a great deal of money if necessary, as long as they do not earn it in specific ways. We can dismiss the question of time, since no argument is being presented that Members are incapable of undertaking other activities and that they would not have sufficient time to look after their constituents. Clearly, they do and, if anything, all the evidence suggests that Members are devoting more time to their responsibilities in this House and using the advances in communications technology and elsewhere to provide improving services. Opportunities are increasing, added to by IPSA’s proposals for Members to have an annual report, to set out for our constituents how we do that.

It seems to me that no issue arises on the motion. The issue before us is how to achieve the greatest transparency and our Bill, published today, is the only relevant action taking place. It meets the objective of being more transparent about third-party influences—whether that is about lobbying or non-party campaigning at election times or about the scrutiny and accountability of trade unions.

There is an issue, of course, about “who pays the piper calls the tune”, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said. That is an issue in relation to the Labour party and the influence of the trade unions, and the Labour party really has to respond to that. I suggest to Labour Members that they cut the chaff and stop trying to divert from where the real issues lie, and instead respond to the offer we have made for there to be a change to the legislation that begins to tackle the real issue that the public care about, which is that he who pays for the Labour party calls its tune.

The motion is flawed in practice and pointless in its content. Whether or not one has sympathy with some of the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, I urge Members to recognise that the motion should not be supported by the House and to reject it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Business of the House

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 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 15 July—Debate on a motion relating to justice and home affairs, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to Europol.

Tuesday 16 July—Second Reading of the Defence Reform Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the European Union (Referendum) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 17 July—Opposition day (fifth allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on Trident alternatives review.

Thursday 18 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the launch of a report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on the private rented sector, followed by the launch of a report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on “Revisiting Rebuilding the House: The Impact of the Wright Reforms”, followed by a general debate on the economic implications for the United Kingdom of an EU-US trade and investment agreement, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments. The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.

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

Monday 2 September—A debate on a motion relating to the future for postal services in rural areas, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 18 July will be:

Thursday 18 July—General debate on UK shale gas development.

[Ms Eagle]

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

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s proposals for MPs’ pay and pensions in the 2015 Parliament have just been published. Does the Leader of the House agree that any decisions that IPSA makes after the public consultation on this package of measures should reflect wider economic circumstances and what is happening in the public and private sectors?

Last week I asked the Leader of the House to protect the extra time to scrutinise the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. In response the Leader of the House said he would

“take steps to ensure that the time that is available for that debate is protected”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1061.]

On Monday and Tuesday we had more than four hours of statements, wiping out all the extra time that the right hon. Gentleman had so generously granted. Will he now tell us why his assurances to this House appear to carry such weight in the Government? And will he tell me exactly what was the point of appearing to grant extra time in the first place?

The Conservative party has a blind spot when it comes to women. First, the Mayor of London said that women only go to university to find husbands. Then the Prime Minister completely forgot about British Wimbledon champions Ann Jones and Virginia Wade when complimenting Andy Murray on his fantastic achievement last Sunday. Finally we had the Foreign Secretary exercising his well-known diplomatic skills by using a phrase about my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) that I cannot repeat in the House. This Tory party is so modern that its members either ignore women completely or casually insult them. It looks like the unconscious bias training that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is meant to be organising for them really is not working.

Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister was seen out for dinner last week with Mick Jagger.

[Ms Eagle]

Indeed. I hear they were discussing Lib Dem theme songs for the next election. How about “You can’t always get what you want”, or “Under my thumb”? Personally, I think that “It’s all over now” might be much more appropriate.

We have all been enjoying the glorious weather. It was lovely to see Tory MPs skipping gleefully around this place last Friday. The barbecues were sizzling, the birds were singing, and the Tory party was banging on about Europe. But even before their prime ministerial burgers were properly digested, they were back to their old ways. After the Home Secretary’s U-turn on the European arrest warrant, another Euro mutiny is brewing. She has been promising the Chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and European Scrutiny Committees time to scrutinise the Government’s opt-out plan for the last nine months. Why, then, did the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box on Monday with an emergency business statement to force a vote, bypassing any kind of Select Committee scrutiny at all?

Not only have the Government shown no respect to those Committees or the House, but they have done so for no reason. The EU treaties, the Commission and even the Government’s own legislation say that they do not need a vote before beginning negotiations, so why is the Leader of the House forcing a vote on Monday? Will he recognise his mistake and put off the vote until the Committees have had time to scrutinise the Government’s plans, as the Home Secretary promised?

While the Leader of the Opposition is taking bold steps to remake our politics, the Prime Minister is failing to answer questions about his dodgy donors. Is not the truth, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) told the BBC yesterday, that in the Conservative party money buys influence. Adrian Beecroft donated half a million pounds and was then allowed to write a report calling for the destruction of workers’ rights. JCB chairman Anthony Bamford donated £2.5 million and was then allowed to write a report on manufacturing. At the recent Tory fundraising ball, the Prime Minister had the temerity to tell his millionaire guests that their donations enabled him to give a tax cut to all their millionaire pals and hedge fund friends. I have calculated that 18 hedge fund bosses donated over £24 million before attending their cosy dinners at No. 10.

The Prime Minister was forced by the scandal to ask Lord Gold to investigate, but it has been more than a year and we have not heard a word. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he expects this important report to be published, and does he know why it has taken so long? A quarter of those on The Sunday Times rich list are donors to the Conservative party. They said that we were all in this together, but is not the truth that this is a Government run by the rich and for the rich?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her questions—I think that there were one or two. As she rightly acknowledged, decisions about Members’ pay, pensions and expenses are not made by this House; they are now matters for IPSA, which is an independent body. IPSA has today published its recommendations on the future remuneration package for MPs from 2015. That is for consultation before any final decision is made in the autumn. I urge anyone who has a view on the proposals to use the opportunity to respond to IPSA. The Government, like the Opposition, have set out our views. We have made it clear that we expect IPSA to take the broader fiscal climate into account, in particular the context of the Government’s approach to public service pay and pensions. I expect that we will maintain that position in any further response to the consultation. I should add that my party’s view is that in tough times we should see the cost of politics going down, not up.

On the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, I was in the Chamber for much of the debate and am confident that in the course of the debate we were able to examine those issues. Indeed, I was pleased by the way in which we were able to respond substantively and positively to the further report from the Parliament Commission on Banking Standards only a short time after its publication.

I am afraid that I do not agree with the shadow Leader of the House at all about her characterisation of the Conservative party’s views in relation to women. As the party of the first woman Prime Minister in this country, we have understood—I have certainly understood since I was but a boy in political terms—the exemplary role that women can play in politics and in other aspects of life. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) that he should not continue to chunter noisily from a sedentary position and to gesticulate as well? It is unseemly and it is not statesmanlike in the way that I aspire him to be. We have a lot of business to get through and we will make speedier progress if we have brief contributions and some order.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As for tennis, I am of an age where I absolutely remember Ann Jones and Virginia Wade. I know that the Prime Minister merely spoke in a moment of excitement in recognising and congratulating Andy Murray. I do not think for a minute that my right hon. Friend would have forgotten them if he had thought about it for a further second.

I did not know that the Deputy Prime Minister had had a meal with Mick Jagger, but I am looking forward to the “Moves Like Jagger” moment that will no doubt result from it.

May I explain the vote that will occur next Monday to the shadow Leader of the House? It is very straightforward. The Government published their Command Paper. It is not essential—nothing legally requires it—for the Government to have a vote of the House before the opt-out, but back in October the Home Secretary made it clear that we would have such a vote. The vote on Monday is an opportunity for the House to support the opt-out. It is not a vote about the character of the opt-in. Since the negotiation the House is able, in addition, to vote on Monday to take note of the Command Paper. That is the basis on which having opted out in due course, as we are intending to do, the House and the Select Committees of the House will then have an opportunity to consider the opt-in. I am afraid that it is simply not true to say, as the shadow Leader of the House does, that the Select Committees will not have an opportunity to consider the character of the opt-in; they will be able to look at that at the same time as my right hon. Friends are conducting the negotiation with the Commission and with other member states.

May I say a word about Prime Minister’s questions? I listened very carefully, Mr Speaker, when you responded to a point of order from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and of course I absolutely agree with everything you said. In the context of what happened this week, I think that, as you rightly pointed out, the public expect high standards of us, but they also expect Prime Minister’s questions, in particular, to be pretty robust. When the public out there listen to the House, sometimes they hear something that is a bit different from just the noise level in the Chamber, and that is okay—that is fine.

However, this week, if I may say so in agreement with you, Mr Speaker, the noise was excessive and it will have had an adverse impact on the public because it will have made it impossible to hear in the normal way the character of the answers that were being given and, indeed, sometimes the character of the questions being asked. I knew exactly what was happening; I make no bones about it. In the context of the heat-seeking missile that was aimed at the Leader of the Opposition in the previous week about Unite’s relationship with the Labour party, Labour Members were throwing out noise and chaff. Of course, they knew they were doing it, we knew they were doing it, and it would be helpful if the public knew they were doing it. However, we will not stop making sure that that missile hits its target. The Labour party is bought by the trade unions. We do not permit donations to the Conservative party to have strings attached. We do not allow donors to buy policy, to buy influence or to buy candidates, and they cannot buy the leadership of this party, but the trade unions do all those things for the Labour party.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House adopt a policy on programming whereby he gives a protected number of hours to main debates? As you were saying, Mr Speaker, today we have the problem that Back-Bench business is being squeezed, but if we had agreed a motion providing that it could last for six hours from whenever it commenced, it would have solved the problem entirely. Such a thing has been done before, so does the Leader of the House agree that that would a good tactic to adopt?

[Mr Lansley]

Our practice on programming is to be flexible. It is sometimes in the interests of the House for time to be protected, but sometimes that would be an unnecessary constraint. As I made clear last week, in the run-up to the recess, there will inevitably be pressing reasons why the Government make additional announcements and statements, which will have an impact on business, but we will do everything we can to ensure that that does not frustrate us in conducting our business in good time.

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

May we have a debate or a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the serious situation that has developed at Coventry football club? The Football League has said that the club can play in Northampton, which would involve people making a 70-mile round trip at great expense. The Football League should have allowed the dispute between the club and the owners of the Ricoh arena to be resolved before it took that disgraceful decision, so may we have a statement or a review of the regulations?

[Mr Lansley]

I know from previous questions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), that the situation greatly concerns people in Coventry South and neighbouring constituencies. I will raise it once again with my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) that the matter is precisely the sort of thing that he might wish to raise during next Thursday’s pre-recess debate, should he manage to catch Mr Speaker’s eye.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

While I do not share the Leader of the House’s view that Mrs Thatcher was a honky-tonk woman, does he share my view, and sense of surprise, that Sir Bill McKay’s report and recommendations found their way into the public prints this week, apparently before there had been any meaningful discussion in the coalition or across the Floor of the House? This is about proposals on English votes for English-only legislation and on dealing with English and Welsh legislation. Does he have any idea of how the situation came about, and will he tell us the current status of discussions in the coalition and across the Floor? Where does the issue go from here, because many of us who are involved in the Scottish referendum campaign feel that it is better to settle the future of the Union before we get on to deciding how to handle English and Scottish business in a continuing House of Commons?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I am slightly surprised by what he says. I saw the press report to which he refers but, as far as I am concerned, it did not represent an announcement of anything. Indeed, it did not bring Sir William McKay’s report into the public domain because I believe that it was published in March. As we have reported to the House before, we continue to discuss the report, which we welcome, and we will make a fuller response to it later in the year.

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

Last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refused to accept that the reason 500,000 people in our country have to access emergency food aid is social security delays. When I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, the reply told me that Lord Freud had not even visited a food bank. The Trussell Trust confirms today that the delays are the result of changes that have been made since April, so may we have an urgent debate attended by all Work and Pensions Ministers so that they can acknowledge that we have a problem in this country?

[Mr Lansley]

Like the hon. Lady, I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State speaking about precisely that issue during Work and Pensions questions. The situation is not as simple as she characterises it. It is clear, as the Trussell Trust itself rightly says, that the availability of food banks has increased, and they have been advertised through jobcentres, which was not the case before the election. The number of people accessing food banks increased by many times before the election and it has increased since.

What I think has been a particularly pointed issue is whether benefit processing times and delays were themselves leading to people accessing food banks. I tell the hon. Lady that benefit processing times have improved over the past five years. The number of benefits processed on time—that is, within 16 days—is up 4% since 2009-10.

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

Following an unannounced inspection of Derriford hospital in Plymouth, the Care Quality Commission said yesterday that the hospital had failed to meet five of the nine nationally required standards in protecting patients undergoing surgery. Although I know that the chief executive of Derriford hospital is doing a very good job in trying to get this right, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the progress being made to ensure that we are not producing any more “never events”?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Health Secretary and his colleagues will answer questions on health matters next Tuesday. Having visited Derriford hospital, I know that it is a big hospital with a lot of dedicated staff who are trying to do an excellent job. When I was Health Secretary, we instituted professionally led, unannounced inspections by the CQC and it is important that they take place. They expose where standards are not what they ought to be and I know that the staff will try to respond.

As Health Secretary I extended the list of “never events” and introduced the open publication of the number and character of them by trust, so that we can see what is happening. I think that that transparency in itself will, as it does in so many other ways, help us drive down the number of such events in the future.

[Mr Speaker]

It sounds like there is scope for a debate, if in fact we have not already had it.

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

May we have a debate on the dangers and evils of imperialism and annexation of another country’s territory, whether it be Saddam Hussein in Kuwait or, at the other end of the spectrum, the Westminster Government who, as the front page of The Guardian reports, are bullying Scotland as part of “project fear”? Free peoples across the world will condemn that and stand with Scotland in the name of freedom.

[Mr Lansley]

Given that the hon. Gentleman’s question is occasioned by the front page of today’s Guardian, I hope he will be pleased to hear that the Government have not commissioned contingency plans for Faslane. Ideas of the kind described have not come to the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister and they would not support them if they did.

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

The Leader of the House is well aware of the phenomenal success of the cancer drugs fund since it was introduced in 2010, but there is growing concern among charities, clinicians and patients about the lack of clarity about its replacement. In a well-attended meeting in March, the Secretary of State for Health said that he would make a statement about this before the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House update us on progress with regard to that statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be here to answer questions next Tuesday. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is assiduous in taking up these issues and I absolutely agree with him: the cancer drugs fund is tremendously important. It was always clear that it would enable us to meet the needs of patients in accessing new and innovative medicines and it has done so in about 27,000 cases, which is tremendous news. It is expected, however, that from January 2014 we will have a system that will enable patients right across the NHS to access the latest innovative medicines at a price that represents value for money for the NHS.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Committee on Climate Change published a report on adaption, which said that by the 2020s the gap between water demand and water supply could be 120 billion litres—the amount that our farmers extract each year. This is an incredible strain on our resources and farmers. May we have a debate on water extraction and the potential effect on the irrigation of crops?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The Select Committee could seek, in the usual way, to have a debate through the Liaison Committee.

[Barry Gardiner]

It was not the Select Committee; it was the Committee on Climate Change.

[Mr Lansley]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He and others may wish to seek a debate through the Backbench Business Committee. He will be aware of the publication of the national adaptation programme and the importance attached to it in delivering our proactive response to the potential risks and consequences that flow from climate change.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the problems caused by Travellers occupying council or private land, as highlighted by a recent incident in my constituency. I recognise that the Government have made it easier for councils and landowners to take action, but recent incidents highlight that problems remain. Will he find time for a debate on this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that many Members will understand and share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know that we have taken many steps to ensure fair play in the planning system—I draw particular attention to the recent written ministerial statement on planning and revoking the equality and diversity in planning guidance—and to enable a sense of fairness across the community. That is not, in any sense, to underplay the needs of Traveller communities in the planning system, but to ensure that there is community cohesion because everyone is seen to be treated fairly.

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

Unfortunately, Durham and Tees Valley airport’s regional growth fund bid was rejected in the latest round, yet the Government saw fit to give £145 million to national programmes in which HSBC and RBS were winners. Like many others, I was under the impression that the regional growth fund was meant for the regions, so can we have a statement on why £145 million has been given to the banks, rather than this country’s regions?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot comment on the particular reasons for a decision made under the regional growth fund, but today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), will be announcing additional allocations of resources to support the regional growth fund, which has had a positive impact and played a significant part in the creation of 1.3 million new private sector jobs since the last election. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be better off applauding that in the first instance.

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

In view of this week’s ludicrous decision by the European Court of Human Rights on whole-life sentences, may we have an urgent debate on the effect of the Court’s decisions on the confidence of the British public in our legal system, particularly our criminal legal system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government are deeply disappointed by this week’s judgment. We believe that whole-life tariffs are appropriate for exceptionally serious murders. The judgment does not mean, of course, that any offender who has received a whole-life tariff will be released immediately or that they will ever necessarily be released. The Court found a breach because there was no review point in the sentence. The Government will consider the detail of the judgment to determine what action might be necessary or possible, and we will make a further statement in response to the concerns expressed by him and others soon.

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

I have in my hand a letter from the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary in which they commit themselves

“to ensuring enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of EU justice and home affairs matters, including the 2014 decision.”

It came with a list of 136 opt-ins for justice and home affairs matters in the EU. Why, therefore, are the Government pressing ahead with a motion on Monday that lists for consultation only the 35 issues in the Command Paper? What happened to the promise that consultation would take place on all these items? Is it not time to abandon this divisive motion?

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps I should reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. It is very straightforward: the Home Secretary has published in the Command Paper the Government’s conclusions on the opt-out—last October, she made it clear that the Government’s policy was to opt out and then decide whether, and to what extent, to opt back in—and policy conclusions. Monday’s debate will enable the House to respond to that and to vote in support of the opt-out, but to note that we are entering negotiations that will lead to a vote in 2014 on the extent of the opt-in.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

For a decade or more, many parts of Wales have received European money at the highest intervention rate, with little obvious effect on the economy. In view of the UK Government’s generous settlement for Wales—again—and the latest round of EU funding, may we have a debate on the effectiveness of EU funding in helping the GDP of areas such as Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There were many happy consequences of the Prime Minister’s negotiating success in the budget negotiations. One was to reduce the overall size of the budget, and another was to give us the flexibility we are looking for, and focus on, improving our international competitiveness, and Wales will receive more than €2.145 billion in European funding from 2014 to 2020. We are focusing those funds on regions with lower GDP per capita, and using the full flexibility available. Among other things, that will provide west Wales and the valleys with an increase of €91 million compared with what the allocation would have been by applying the European Union formula alone.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we have a debate on the failure of the Government’s prohibition of mephedrone, which resulted in a 300% increase in its use? The likely effect of the ban on khat will be to drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police, and also increase use. When can we have intelligent drug policies that decrease use and harm, instead of more populist, prejudice-based policies that increase harm and use?

[Mr Lansley]

I believe we have an intelligent policy that focuses not just on harm reduction but on trying to get people off drugs altogether. That is the proper answer and where we need to get to, not just the shift from heroin to methadone with some of the risks and consequences that flow from that, including the risk of reverting to heroin use. I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers will be in the Chamber on Monday and he may like to raise that point with them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is it time we had a debate and vote on whether we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights, following the latest bizarre, perverse, and frankly idiotic, ruling on whole-life sentences? The British public do not want Ministers to say they are deeply disappointed; they want them to do something about it such as leave that ridiculous organisation that is full of pseudo-judges, many of whom are political placemen rather than properly qualified judges.

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, we agreed in the coalition agreement that obligations under the European convention on human rights will continue to be enshrined in British law, and he will appreciate that we took considerable positive steps forward during our presidency of the Council of Europe and in the Brighton declaration, which will help. He and others across the House will continue to be concerned at the nature of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and its interpretation of convention rights. There will be an opportunity to consider the implications of that on our future relationship with the convention, although I cannot promise that in the immediate future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to back my call for an investigation into excessive charges made by BT for repairs following work for a fuel poverty scheme in Stockton-on-Tees?

[Mr Lansley]

I will raise that point with my colleagues and ask them to respond to the hon. Gentleman.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Youth unemployment in my constituency is down 15% since the last election. May we have a debate on the success of the Government’s economic policies and on what more can be done to ensure that all young people have the dignity of work?

[Mr Lansley]

Youth unemployment is down by 43,000 this quarter and 60,000 since last year, and I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says about additional youth employment in Croydon, which is important. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the Opposition could always take up the issue in the Opposition day debate next Wednesday.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I know the Leader of the House will not want to upset millionaire moonlighters and parliamentary part-timers on the Government Benches, but I think being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job. Given the brilliant speech made earlier this week by the Leader of the Opposition, may we have an urgent debate on how we can ensure that Members of Parliament spend their time in Parliament serving their constituents, not outside lining their pockets?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might not have had a chance to read IPSA’s report this morning. Although it says that additional employment and outside earnings are not strictly in IPSA’s remit, it does offer views on the subject. One of the crucial things that IPSA says is that relatively few Members of this House have any significant earnings from outside and about only 10% have second jobs. He might remember that the Committee on Standards in Public Life looked at this issue and reached the conclusion that there was no reason to place any bar on outside employment for Members of this House.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House comment on the need for compassion to be shown by Somerset county council on the occasion of medical emergencies? My constituent John, who lives in Cheddar, had to empty his colostomy bag because it was leaking. He needed to fix the situation urgently, but he received a parking ticket while he was doing so. In spite of his many appeals to the county council, it has not budged and he is now threatened with forced collection.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady wants either a statement or a debate.

[Mr Lansley]

I can offer neither, but I know, as other Members will, that if the county council sees my hon. Friend’s reference to the issue in the House, it will, I hope, respond positively. Some councils do, and I hope hers might.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

May we have a statement or at least a meeting with the relevant Minister to find out why the bid from Durham Tees Valley airport was turned down by the regional growth fund? The bid could have created 1,400 jobs and leveraged in another £40 million of investment.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot comment on the bid, but of course I will talk to Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Whenever there is a bid, it is always good practice to offer as much feedback as possible to those who are unsuccessful.

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

This week the International Monetary Fund upgraded its forecast for economic growth in the UK, at the same time as lowering the forecast for the rest of the world. May we have a debate about the UK economy, which is now moving out of intensive care, following the record bust created by the last Labour Government?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. We do not know what the Opposition’s choice of debate for next Wednesday will be, but they might like to consider the opportunity to debate some of the economic good news. The deficit is down by a third and we have close to record low interest rates and 1.3 million more people working in the private sector—these are the kinds of things that it would be good for us to focus on. Our success in winning in the global race depends on sustaining the policy path we are on now.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on Prime Minister’s questions? My 83-year-old mother Beryl loves it, and not just because she gets a chance to see me in the Chamber. As a member of the trade union that helped her when she was injured at work as a dinner lady lifting tables, she would understand the noise that was generated by the remarks of a Prime Minister trying to demonise trade unions, from a party that is funded by millionaires and spivs.

[Mr Lansley]

My mother is 92, and although she enjoys Prime Minister’s questions, she prefers business questions more.

[Mr Speaker]

Why is that no surprise?

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Youth unemployment has fallen by 8.3% in my constituency in the last year. However, I am not being complacent and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I are running a jobs fair in my constituency on 24 July. Will my right hon. Friend welcome that jobs fair? May we also have a debate on what the Government are doing to reduce youth unemployment and what individual Members are doing to help young people to get into work?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be great if we could have that debate—perhaps the Opposition will take it up. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the work he is doing to support young people to get into jobs. Many of my hon. Friends are doing similar things, organising job fairs locally, and we can see the benefit. We can see new jobs being created and young people going into those jobs. It is right not to be complacent; therefore local action is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Why are the Government insisting on Monday on a vote on both the hokey and the cokey? We will have to vote on the opt-out and the opt-in, when there is no requirement to start the negotiations for a vote on the opt-out. The Select Committees will have had no opportunity to look at the evidence on the individual measures, nor will there be any guarantees that we will be able to do simultaneous opting out and opting in.

[Mr Lansley]

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the vote on Monday will enable the House to take a view in response to the Government’s publication of the Command Paper, at a point when my right hon. Friends are conducting a negotiation. That will strengthen their hand in negotiation. We have been clear about the opt-out. Support for the opt-out is the essence of the debate on Monday. The extent of the opt-in will be the subject of a further vote in 2014.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how Jobcentre Plus can advertise more jobs locally, for instance in industries such as fruit and vegetable growing and packing, so that local people seeking work are made aware of them?

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important point. In fact, I will raise it with my friends in the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to respond. In many constituencies Jobcentre Plus does a very good job, but we should be tireless in trying to ensure that we match people out of work to the unprecedentedly high number—more than 500,000—of vacancies. It would be really good news if we did that.

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

The whole country can see the IPSA car crash unfolding. We all know that the Prime Minister will be forced to intervene eventually, so why do we not have a debate before the summer recess on what we need to do to amend the IPSA rules and put this fantasy proposal to bed now?

[Mr Lansley]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman and the House that just four years ago—not a long time ago—this House passed legislation to create an independent body. Many of the problems emerging from this issue stem from the simple fact that Members are not willing to let go. We no longer have a say on our pay and pensions. We can express our view, but we do not determine them. It would be immensely to the benefit of the House and the public debate if that were recognised by the public and the press. We do not have a say: IPSA has the say. Go and express views to them. We will do so on a personal and party basis.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Unemployment in Tamworth is now at its lowest level since 2008—before Labour’s crash. That has been driven partly by the distribution and logistics sectors. May we have a debate on those sectors so we can explore the job opportunities they provide, particularly to young people?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend understands well from the geography of his constituency—it is in a central position—how distribution and logistics work. We have competitive sectors, but we are in a global race and constantly have to improve our competitiveness. That is why the fact that this country has moved up in the competitiveness league tables is great. What is equally great news is that the UK was regarded in a recent survey as the best place in the world in which to do business.

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

When the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate visited my constituency recently it found more than 70 separate breaches of the law governing how people are paid, and £100,000 owing to local workers through underpayments. The Government’s consultation on the recruitment sector closed on 11 April, so may we have a debate on the future of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate?

[Mr Lansley]

I fear I cannot offer an immediate debate; I do not have one immediately in prospect. The hon. Gentleman and colleagues with like interests may care to raise the issue with the Backbench Business Committee, but I will of course raise his point with my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

Residents in my constituency are becoming increasingly concerned about the local plan being developed by Warwick district council. They feel that their voice is not being respected and I believe that the council needs to rethink its ill-conceived proposals. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on planning policy and on how we can give greater democratic control of the planning system to communities?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a specific point relating to his constituency and his local council. I hope his local council will listen to what he says. The Localism Act 2011 sets out to give power to local authorities and neighbourhood plans, and tries to ensure that they take account fully not only of the simplified national planning policy framework, but do so in the context of local decision making by local people. He is right to stress that point.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The independent living fund has transformed the lives of severely disabled people. May we have a debate on the likely impact of the decision to transfer the fund to local authorities? Severely disabled people are greatly concerned about the likelihood of losing their independence.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course talk to my hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions; it seems that I shall need to do that quite a lot today. The hon. Gentleman is describing the transfer of those funds into the hands of local authorities. Those local authorities will have the ability to look at a range of benefits and assess how they will work in the context of the link to people’s own housing responsibilities, and I know that that is proving to be a positive way of enabling people to manage to a budget more effectively. In so many of these circumstances, however, the ability to have discretion at the margin to deal with difficult cases is something that every council will have to look at carefully.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

In recent days, two companies in Montgomeryshire—Control Techniques and Invertek Drives—have announced 90 new local high-tech jobs. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to make a statement on how we can work with the Welsh Government to build on this success as the UK moves out of recession?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is a great cheerleader for mid-Wales, and he is absolutely right to suggest that there are some great businesses helping the UK to compete in the global race by investing and expanding their operations. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State, but if he is in his place next Thursday when the Secretary of State is responding to questions, he might have a further opportunity to raise the matter then.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will have noted that IPSA is back in the news. May we have a statement on what IPSA is going to do to improve its cumbersome IT systems, which waste an awful lot of MPs’ staff time, and to address the fact that the organisation remains incommunicado for large parts of the day?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not promise a statement at the moment but, if I may, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s point to the attention of my colleagues on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I know that the Committee has raised a number of issues with IPSA as a consequence of its examination of the organisation’s estimate. We will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board when we further consider some of these IPSA issues.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In recent months, my visually impaired constituent, Doug Hollingsworth, has been having great difficulty in accessing audio correspondence from the Department for Work and Pensions. May we have a debate on how people with visual impairments can gain better access to that Department?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House will be sorry to hear of the difficulties that my hon. Friend’s constituent is experiencing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to our attention. I will raise the matter with the Department for Work and Pensions, which I know has the facility to offer a range of formats, provided as “reasonable adjustments”, for visually impaired or blind people, including materials in audio format, large print or Braille. I shall bring the case to the Department’s attention, so that it can look into whether it is making the necessary adjustments.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 389, which deals with the sudden closure of the Maypole club in Harlow?

[That this House is shocked and saddened at the closure of the Maypole Club in Harlow; notes the vital contribution that the club made to the community of Harlow; further notes that many Harlow residents had special occasions booked at the club, and football teams will no longer be able to use their pitches with immediate effect; believes the staff and managers of the club should have received notice before it closed; and therefore urges the new owners to provide an alternative clubhouse and alternative pitches to local football teams.]

On Tuesday, I was shocked to hear that, after an overnight sale of its lease, the Maypole club, which makes a huge contribution to our local community, had been boarded up. No notice was given to management, staff, members or the many sports teams that use its facilities. May we have an urgent debate on small community clubs, and will my right hon. Friend contact the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and ask him to look into this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s early-day motion to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I know that the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) will be grateful to him once again for raising their concerns about community services.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

When will the Bill to ensure that foreign nationals will be charged for using the NHS come before the House? Will it address the concerns of the constituent who wrote to me this week to say:

“As an NHS nurse of 33 years…I find I am providing care for elderly patients with chronic health needs who have never lived in the UK at any point of their life, who have come to live with their family members who have recently settled in the UK…most recently from Bulgaria, Greece and Slovakia”?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that, the week before last, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published a consultation relating to access to NHS services for those coming from abroad. That consultation will enable us to introduce the legislation described in the Queen’s Speech later this year. On my hon. Friend’s point about his constituent, any NHS services provided to older and retired people from other European Union member states can be charged back to the member state, and that is what we do.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.