Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 28 June will include:

Monday 28 June—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 29 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a full day’s debate on local government financing. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion.

Wednesday 30 June—General debate on the progress and prospects in energy efficiency.

Thursday 1 July—General debate on global poverty.

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

Monday 5 July—Motion relating to the clear line of sight project, followed by the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Tuesday 6 July—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday 7 July—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 8 July—General debate on defendant anonymity.

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.

It is important that today we take the opportunity to acknowledge that the Leader of the House has been working extremely hard this week to fine-tune his leak-prevention strategy. I certainly detected his guiding hand in the reports of the unprecedented move by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask journalists to sign a written legal agreement that they would only take photographs of him and not ask any questions, just in case he let the cat out of the bag about anything in the Budget. That was a magnificent move, not least because it vindicated the work that the Opposition have been putting in week after week, making helpful and constructive suggestions about how to get the Leader of the House’s leak-prevention strategy up to scratch. Sadly for the Chancellor, the media refused to co-operate and, frankly, things have been going downhill ever since.

The Secretary of State for Education announced his plans for free schools to the papers and came to the House only because the Opposition tabled an urgent question. The Secretary of State for Health announced to the media the biggest shake-up of the NHS operating framework at 9.25 on Monday morning, but a written ministerial statement did not appear until 12.40. As for the Budget, most of it, including detailed figures, was in the Sunday papers—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point of order about that this week.

Obviously, an investigation of what went wrong will be in order, but Labour Members are quietly confident that the Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House can become the Government’s Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. They might like to have as their prime suspect the ventriloquist’s dummy, the Chief Secretary, who tells us very little when he comes to the House, but may be rather more garrulous with journalists as the Liberal Democrat mouthpiece for Conservative policies. Perhaps the Leader of the House could put in the Library the advice that is being given to the Cabinet about making announcements to the House before making them to journalists.

Why is there no oral statement today from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on changes to the state pension age, which mean that men in their 50s will lose on average £8,000 of state pension?

Last week, the Leader of the House stated that he had set out in response to a written question how the Government would inform Parliament of the numerous reviews and commissions that are taking place. It is not clear from his reply where the review took place that led on Monday to the Prime Minister’s saying, in response to an intervention from me, that the Sheffield Forgemasters loan was a piece of “financial engineering”. Those remarks have caused huge concern among industrialists in Sheffield and south Yorkshire. The implications of the Prime Minister’s words are that he is backing Japanese and Korean industrialists against UK manufacturing. I urge the Leader of the House to provide more information about the reviews’ terms of reference.

May we have a general debate on today’s findings by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? The IFS shows that, under Labour’s plans, the poorest 10% would have been virtually untouched, but under the Chancellor’s Budget, their incomes are cut by more than 2.5%. Even the Government’s appointed public sector pay commissioner has said that there is no logic to the brutish cuts that the Chancellor proposes. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister himself to lead the debate on the IFS findings so that he can explain to the House why he said yesterday that it was a fair Budget?

I thank the Leader of the House for granting the general debate on defendant anonymity. That is very welcome.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her last comment. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her success in the election for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong about the written ministerial statement on the NHS operating framework. It was issued on time, just after half-past nine, and the document, which was the subject of the point of order, was deposited in the Library at 9.34 am. All the normal procedures were followed in respect of that document.

It is indeed the case that more urgent questions are being granted. I listened to your important speech to the Hansard Society, Mr Speaker, when you said:

“I have also deliberately rescued the urgent question, a device which compels a Minister to come to the House to face a question on a matter which has suddenly arisen”.

The previous Government also experienced that change of approach. We welcome it and are happy to come to the House to answer urgent questions when they are granted.

On Sheffield, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills dealt with that point extensively in his speech in the Budget debate yesterday, and I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting Sheffield Forgemasters tomorrow in his constituency.

So far as welfare is concerned, the right hon. Lady will know that on Monday the Budget debate will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He will deal robustly with the points that she has made. She will also know that, for the first time, the Red Book contains a whole section on the impact of tax and welfare changes on households, from page 63 all the way to page 69. I am sure that she will have read the conclusion about child poverty on page 69, which says:

“Steps have been taken to protect low income families with children from the impact of these changes, by freezing the rate of Child Benefit to partly fund above indexation increases to the Child Tax Credit. This ensures that the overall impact of all modelled Budget changes on child poverty…is statistically insignificant.”

Let me say to the right hon. Lady that of course I take seriously the question of leaks, as I have said before. The House should be the first place to hear of any major changes in Government policy, and we also take seriously the suggestion of any leaks in advance of statements. However, on her general point, the House would take the Opposition more seriously, first, if they exhibited just some remorse for the mess that they left this country in, and secondly, if they indicated how they would fill the £50 billion gap in the public finances that they left us to inherit.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Now that we realise how much the previous Government misled the public about transport infrastructure investment, promising money that simply did not exist, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on enabling greater private sector investment in our transport infrastructure, including helping to boost projects such as the regeneration of Crewe railway station in my constituency?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Along with many other hon. Friends, I had occasion to visit Crewe railway station some two years ago, in order to secure his election to the House. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor refer in his Budget statement to a generous regional investment fund to take forward transport and other infrastructure projects that will lead to jobs. My hon. Friend will also know that we favour much longer railway franchises, which will enable the train operating companies to take a longer-term view and therefore afford major investment projects such as that in Crewe railway station.

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

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government informed me that he would not be calling in a planning decision for a mega-Tesco in my constituency. Although gains in jobs will be welcome in the local economy, just down the road in Stretford town centre, there is a shopping centre in deep financial difficulties as a result of the Tory council’s failure to invest and support it. Can we have a debate on how this Government intend to support and regenerate local town centres, which is something that I know is of concern across the House?

[Sir George Young]

I will of course draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the failure to call in a particular planning decision, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that one of the thrusts of the coalition Government’s policies is to devolve decision making down to local communities—to local councillors who are answerable to local people for the decisions that they take on planning and others matters.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the written statement this morning on pre-charge detention? Although I understand that the instrument will be debatable in the House, we are talking about a highly controversial issue. In future when they have such highly controversial issues, can he encourage his right hon. Friends to come and speak to the House, and not follow the new Labour practice of releasing things as written statements on a one-line Whip Thursday.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, today’s statement is about an interim arrangement while the review of detention takes place, and it carries forward for six months the 28-day detention proposal. As he generously said, the order that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just laid will be debatable and votable on in both Houses, so I hope that there will be adequate opportunity for his views on this important issue to be heard.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his congratulations and I look forward to working with him closely. He has always been a vocal supporter of a strong Backbench Business Committee. As such, will he ensure that the Chair of that Committee has full membership of the Liaison Committee?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s words. I had always envisaged that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee would indeed be a Member of the Liaison Committee and take part in its important work, not least in its twice yearly interrogation of the Prime Minister.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Would the Leader of the House look favourably on requests for a general debate on the Floor of the House on science and its role in ensuring that we have an expanding and improving economy, particularly so that the Government can express their views on genetically modified technology and the role it can play in British agriculture?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that proposal. As he will know, in future, decisions as to whether or not a general debate is held will fall to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and her colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee, which we hope to get up and running as soon as we can. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said did not fall on deaf ears.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the answering of written questions with respect to a named day? Last Monday, I was expecting an answer from the Treasury to a named day written question about the distributional impact of a 1% rise in VAT. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted the Red Book, is he not astonished that I am yet to receive an answer to that question?

[Sir George Young]

I am genuinely sorry if there has been any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, and I will draw to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at the Treasury the need to get him an urgent reply.

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

May I welcome the late conversion of the former Labour Government to not leaking to the press before making announcements in this House? May I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on the importance of maintaining specialist mental health facilities, which would allow me to raise the question of the loss of the intensive care unit at Woodhaven hospital in the New Forest and the threat to the Crowlin House rehabilitation centre there?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I know that this is an important issue for New Forest Members. He might like to put in for an Adjournment debate on this important issue or raise it with Ministers at the next Health questions.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago, we were told that a statement on Building Schools for the Future would be made so that everybody would know which schools would be able to go ahead. The people living in Shirebrook and Tibshelf in the Bolsover constituency are still waiting for an answer. Several schools were built when the Labour Government were in power; when are we going to have a statement?

[Sir George Young]

As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Budget statement, the comprehensive spending review is now under way and the outcome will be known on 20 October. At that point, the Department will be in a position to see how best to spend its capital programme.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the news flow from Afghanistan has not been very good recently. In addition to the further tragic loss of life, there has been the news about General McChrystal, the resignation of key Ministers within President Karzai’s Government and the early retirement of the UK special envoy to Afghanistan. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to encourage the Government to bring forward perhaps a ministerial statement outlining the latest situation, particularly given the talk from within the international security assistance force—ISAF—comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that the Prime Minister made a statement on Afghanistan a few days ago and that the Government are committed to regular updates to the House on Afghanistan from where there has indeed been some more tragic news today. He will also know that Foreign and Commonwealth questions takes place on 6 July, but I do bear in mind his request, which I know is widely shared, for a more general debate on what is happening in Afghanistan.

[Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The House would not want to be left with the suspicion that the Deputy Prime Minister says one thing to one group and quite another thing to another group. Will the Leader of the House ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will report to the House on his meeting, due to take place tomorrow, with Sheffield Forgemasters? This is an issue not just for Sheffield—important though it is there—but for the whole of the nuclear industry, and particularly for our plans in the north-west of England.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Deputy Prime Minister answers questions to the House like any other Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise the matter with him. Alternatively, he can table a written question to the Deputy Prime Minister on the issue he has raised.

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

All the English Members of the House thoroughly enjoyed England’s qualification yesterday, and it was wonderful to see the cross of St George flying. However, it is still frustrating to hear England singing the wrong anthem—the anthem of the United Kingdom. Following the historic decision to use “Jerusalem” at the Commonwealth games, may we have a debate in the House about properly establishing an English national anthem for when England, as opposed to the United Kingdom, compete?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that England’s victory yesterday was celebrated not just in England but in Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. In future, whether or not something is debated in the House will be a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. In the meantime, he might like to try his luck in Westminster Hall.

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

Further to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the impact of VAT increases on low-paid families, bearing in mind that the Chancellor’s and the Prime Minister’s claims that the Budget is fair are contradicted in the Institute for Fiscal Studies report?

[Sir George Young]

We are in the middle of a four-day debate on the Budget, and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later today and on Monday to raise precisely the issue he has just touched on and to get a convincing reply from one of my right hon. Friends.

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

In view of the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that regrettably the civil list is to be frozen yet again, will the Leader of the House please arrange for a statement on the latest position on the Queen’s forthcoming diamond jubilee being properly marked in the House and throughout the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I understand that the arrangements on the civil list were dealt with by agreement, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that appropriate celebrations are necessary. We have a year or two in which to plan them, and I hope there will be an opportunity to share with the House exactly how that will be handled.

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

May I offer my most sincere congratulations to the English football team on reaching the knockout stage of the World cup? Does the Leader of the House not agree that disqualification of the smaller parties in the House from the Backbench Business Committee is in danger of rendering the whole project undemocratic and illegitimate? What is he doing to ensure that all Back Benchers are equal and that all have an opportunity to participate in the business of the House?

[Sir George Young]

The Wright Committee recommended that there should be a business committee of between seven and nine members. The House agreed the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee of eight members a few days ago, and the allocation between the parties was done according to the formula with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, and the minority parties did not get a place. However, that Committee will be re-elected every year, and I can only suggest that when members are elected for the current year, he opens a dialogue with as many of them as possible to ensure that the voice of minority parties is heard at the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure that its Chairman has listened to his point.

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

The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that following years of under-investment in our magistrates courts, Goole magistrates and county court, along with neighbouring Selby magistrates court, are scheduled for closure. May we have a debate on that important issue?

[Sir George Young]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Lord Chancellor yesterday announced a consultation on the closure of 157 magistrates and county courts. With public finances under pressure, we need to reduce costs wherever we can. We are committed to supporting local justice, and the Justice Secretary will take all views expressed into account before deciding which courts ought to be closed and when.

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

I am not entirely sure about this new democracy malarkey. Although we are not allowed to say it, the Whips did a very good job in previous Parliaments of ensuring that Select Committees had a good balance, geographically and in terms of gender and experience. Under the new system, I am not sure that that will be possible. May we have a debate at some point on whether this new experiment in democracy within the House has worked? I am not sure that the Wright reforms were the right reforms.

[Sir George Young]

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we go back to the old system whereby the Whips nominated Members to Select Committees. It is astonishing that in the House of Commons, the cockpit of democracy, an hon. Member should make such a regressive suggestion that we abandon elections and go back to nominations.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that we should in no way wish to curtail demonstrations in Parliament square, but that the present system of almost permanent incumbency is unsatisfactory? The square should be used on a much wider basis by more demonstrators and by people for recreation, including tourists.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend. With the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey and Whitehall, it is a historic setting, and the presence of a shanty town right in the middle does no credit to the centre of one of the greatest capital cities in the world. As he will know, the Mayor of London is responsible for the green in the middle of the square, and he is in the process of taking action through the courts against those currently occupying it. If he is successful, I hope that the green will be cleared and accessible to more people. Personally, I have no objection to people lobbying and protesting outside the Houses of Parliament, but I think that at the end of the day they should go home.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

In the newspapers this morning, the Minister for Police has been quoted as saying that

“the last government mistakenly believed that the test of an effective police force was how many officers it employed.”

We know that the Budget and spending review will ensure that there are far fewer police on our streets across the nation, but at the recent general election, in Garston and Halewood, my Conservative opponent promised

“more officers on the beat in Liverpool” ,

as did my Lib Dem opponent. The Deputy Prime Minister, who visited on a number of occasions, also said that the Lib Dems would put more police on the streets. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the new politics that the governing parties appear to be advocating, and on whether it equates to no more than completely ignoring election promises and treating the electorate like dupes?

[Sir George Young]

There will be Home Office questions on 28 June. Until the hon. Lady tells the House how the Labour party would have filled the £50 billion gap in the public finances, we will listen with suspicion to her points accusing us of making reductions that the Labour party would not have had to make had it won the election.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on child abduction? We might then discuss the case of my constituent, Ken Spooner, whose two British-born children were abducted by their Zambian mother in 2008. Having spent nearly all his life savings on successfully getting his children made wards of a UK court, and having that registered in Zambia, even now he cannot get them returned to the UK. Can the Government do anything to help?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Many Members of Parliament will have experienced cases in their constituency in which the courts have awarded custody to the UK parent but the children are abducted to another country. Where the other country has signed the relevant Hague convention, it is possible through the courts of that country to get the child repatriated, but it is difficult where the country concerned has not signed up to that agreement. We are pursuing the matter with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which will be in touch with my hon. Friend.

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

May we have a debate on compensation payments for Christmas Island victims? Such a debate would allow us to find out exactly why the compensation payments are taking so long and to assure the victims that the payments will still be made. More importantly, it would allow us to choke off the financial gravy train for the legal profession.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I will share his concern with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. On 6 July, there will be questions to that Department, and he may have an opportunity to raise the issue then.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a topical debate on the remit and membership of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which is rapidly in danger of becoming a nanny state monster? Most people thought that its job was to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of drugs, yet not a day goes by without it proposing some ridiculous measure, such as compulsory sex education for five-year-olds, state handouts to food companies to produce healthier food, smoking breath tests for pregnant women or minimum pricing for alcohol. May we have a debate on getting NICE back to doing what it should be doing, rather than a load of garbage that it should not be doing?

[Sir George Young]

No public body should engage in mission creep and start encroaching on the responsibilities of other organisations such as school governing bodies or, indeed, parents. My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to share his concern with the Secretary of State for Health during Health questions, which I believe will take place next Tuesday.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on the politicisation of the military, given that a story in this morning’s Daily Telegraph made clear that a row had taken place between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister, and given that it was announced last week that the Prime Minister would personally interview candidates for the post of Chief of the Defence Staff? Is there not a danger that any future CDS will be seen as merely a Tory party stooge?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers, even in The Daily Telegraph. As for the question of public appointments, I can assure him that the proper procedures will be observed in the appointment of senor public officers.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 282?

[That this House congratulates the millions of people who gain vocational qualifications every year and celebrates their achievement on the third annual Vocational Qualifications Day on 23 June 2010; notes that, while there have been significant improvements in the way vocational qualifications are viewed, more needs to be done to raise the stature and demonstrate the benefits of practical and vocational learning; recognises that vocational qualifications provide the workforce of tomorrow with the practical skills needed to progress in the workplace and help employers improve and grow their businesses, especially in a challenging economic environment; and believes that the many paths to success available should be celebrated.]

It refers to Vocational Qualifications day, which was held yesterday. According to Edge, 4 million vocational qualifications were awarded last year, many of them in Harlow. Will the Leader of the House give thought to allowing an annual skills debate to be held on the same day?

[Sir George Young]

It so happens that I have read early-day motion 282. As my hon. Friend will know, the coalition agreement contains a clear commitment in this regard, which states:

“We will improve the quality of vocational education, including increasing flexibility for 14–19 year olds and creating new Technical Academies as part of our plans to diversify schools provision.”

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Several schools in my constituency are expecting investment under the Building Schools for the Future programme. I am deeply concerned by the Leader of the House’s statement earlier that we would have to wait until October to find out whether that investment will go ahead. May we have a debate on the issue, and will the Government reconsider?

[Sir George Young]

The outcome of the comprehensive spending review will indeed be announced on 20 October, but I understand that a statement on Building Schools for the Future is likely to be made next week.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend and best mate the Member for Cardiff South—sorry, I mean Glasgow South—[Laughter.] It is a bit further north than the Cardiff constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) obviously agrees with a predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker. Bernard Weatherill once told me, “You can’t have civilisation without sewers, and you can’t have Parliament without the Whips.” May we have a statement, or perhaps a debate, on the cost of democracy and of some things we have lost which are valuable, including the ability of Opposition spokespeople to travel in order to carry out their duties? That has been taken away by our handing over such matters to people who know nothing about politics. Is it possible for the Leader of the House to look into the matter? I am sure that he will want to make certain that the Opposition can do their job properly, as he did when he was in opposition.

[Sir George Young]

The Government are very anxious for the Opposition to be able to hold us properly to account. Having been an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman myself, I recall that the Short money makes provision for travel for Opposition spokesmen. That is the source to which the hon. Gentleman should look in order to fund his important travels around the country.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The Amnesty International report “From Protest to Prison” reveals that up to 5,000 Iranians citizens are now languishing in prison following the disputed presidential election. There have been 150 executions in Iran, and persecution of the gay community, the Baha’i community and, of course, women remains characteristic of the Iranian regime. May we have a debate on the human rights record of the regime and our Government’s necessary response to it?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman has raised the important issue of the barbaric treatment of a number of prisoners in Iran. Foreign Office questions will take place on 6 July; alternatively, he may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall, where the matter could be dealt with at greater length.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on ministerial statements, or at least a statement on statements? The right hon. Gentleman has suggested to us that it is fine for Ministers to use written ministerial statements even to deal with such highly controversial issues as retirement and the closure of magistrates courts in areas throughout the country, including Llwynypia in my constituency. He has just said that there will be a statement on something next week. Would it not have been better to include that in his opening announcement? Would it not be better for him to say that he knows that there will be a statement next week, so that it will be easier for us to scrutinise the Government?

[Sir George Young]

The business statement does not normally include written statements. We can give prior notice of written ministerial statements, and I shall see whether that could be done in the instance that the hon. Gentleman has cited. However, we have not deviated from the policy on written ministerial statements that was adopted by the last Government, of whom he was a distinguished member.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

If the Leader of the House granted a debate on public sector cuts, I could inform him of my plans for alternative cuts. The Foreign Office recently admitted to me that the ministerial wine cellar was worth £860,000 a year, and that it had just spent nearly £18,000 on replenishing it after the election. However, it was less candid about what was held in the collection. Does the Leader of the House think that Ministers should tell me what is in it, and should we sell it so that we are “all in it together”?

[Sir George Young]

I could have said that the Chief Secretary was not the only person who left the cupboard bare, and that the Government hospitality cellar had to be replenished when we came to office; but I will not.

It says here: “The Government hospitality cellar is a carefully managed resource that is integral to the service delivered by Government hospitality for all Government Departments. Expenditure since the election has been part of the normal buying pattern for the cellar, on which between £80,000 and £100,000 is spent per annum.”

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

When will the Leader of the House announce measures to make good his party’s excellent manifesto commitment based on the Illegally Logged Timber (Prohibition of Sale and Distribution) Bill, which I presented as a ten-minute Bill? The party made that commitment in opposition. Will he also tell us whether the rumour that responsibility for it has been passed from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department of Energy and Climate Change is correct?

[Sir George Young]

I would require notice of the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he has raised an important issue. There is a commitment, and it will be honoured.

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

Given that there is plenty of time for general debates over the next few weeks, may we have an early oral ministerial statement on Equitable Life? Before the election the Government parties made lots of sympathetic noises to Equitable Life policyholders, but they are now increasingly concerned that they are about to be betrayed. May we have an early ministerial statement to reassure them that the promises made not just by the Government but by 380 Members of Parliament across the House are to be kept?

[Sir George Young]

This side of the House will accept no criticism from Opposition Members about the treatment of Equitable Life policyholders. We can do better than a statement: we will introduce a Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Nick Smith.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Yesterday in Parliament the Prime Minister said, in regard to employment, that the Government would

“introduce our work programme, which will be the biggest, boldest scheme in…. history”.—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 288.]

Unemployment in my constituency is almost 12%. The Labour Government’s future jobs fund has been a tremendous success, creating nearly 500 jobs, but when will we have a proper debate? When will we have further discussion and much more information about this important subject?

[Sir George Young]

The short answer is “on Monday”. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will lead Monday’s debate on the Budget, and will focus on that subject.

The future jobs programme was expensive in comparison with other programmes. It found relatively short-term jobs paying relatively low wages. We believe that we can do much better than that.

Points of Order

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The handling of matters of this kind, subject to its being orderly, is in the hands of the Government. As the Leader of the House is here, he might wish to respond, and is welcome to do so.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I would welcome the opportunity to have a chat with the hon. Lady immediately and explain my understanding of what happened on that day.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that that will suffice for now; I think it must.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

4. What steps he plans to take to increase the confidence of the general public in the House of Commons.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

We will bring forward powers for public petitions to trigger debates in the House of Commons and to initiate legislation, and we will introduce a new public reading stage for Bills. The House has also voted for significant new powers to hold the Government to account through the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee.

[John Robertson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and a good answer it was too. Does he agree that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has been a bit of a shambles? We brought it in without thinking about it. Can we make sure that there is consultation with Members and staff, to ensure that the reputation of the House is upheld, rather than the way it is at present?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know that a number of colleagues have had difficulties in accessing the system. The whole purpose of allowances is to facilitate and enable MPs to represent their constituents and hold the Government to account. I am considering whether we can have a proper channel of communication between the House and IPSA to get a sensible dialogue under way. I hope he welcomes the announcement a few days ago that there will be a review of the scheme later this year.

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

Since the start of this Parliament, the coalition Government have repeatedly ignored the House of Commons when making major policy announcements, thus avoiding scrutiny in the Chamber. There have also been some major leaks. Today we have the BBC announcing that the Chancellor will freeze council tax in the Budget, and the Department of Health announced major changes to the NHS operating framework to the media hours before a written ministerial statement on those changes. The Government’s discourtesy also means that copies of statements are delivered late to the Opposition Front Bench, often with only minutes to spare. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who I think believes that good scrutiny leads to good government, assure us that statements will be made first to the House and not to the media, and that the Opposition Front-Bench team will receive a copy of the statement at least an hour before it is delivered?

[Sir George Young]

Of course, statements should be delivered to the Opposition on time, and during the last Parliament Opposition spokesmen did receive copies of statements later than they should have, but I wholeheartedly reject the hon. Lady’s allegation about statements. By the end of today, Ministers will have made no fewer than 10 statements since the Queen’s Speech, and I think that she will find that that is a higher strike rate than was achieved by the last Government. Of course, the House should be the first place to hear of any changes in Government policy.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

5. If he will assess the merits of providing the House with provisional information on its business for more than two weeks in advance.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 21 June will include:

Monday 21 June—General debate on the strategic defence and security review.

Tuesday 22 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Wednesday 23 June and Thursday 24 June—Continuation of the Budget debate.

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

Monday 28 June—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 29 June— Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 30 June— General debate on the progress and prospects in energy efficiency.

Thursday 1 July—General debate on global poverty.

Hon. Members will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 22 June.

I should also like to inform the House of business in Westminster Hall:

Thursday 1 July—A debate entitled “Supporting carers to have a life outside caring”.

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the forthcoming business.

If there are any statements to be made next week, can we make sure that we do not have a repeat of last week’s discourtesy to the House, when General Sir Jock Stirrup’s departure was announced in the Sunday papers, and by the Secretary of State for Defence on television, but was not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Monday? That is hardly the way to treat the Chief of the Defence Staff.

If there are not any planned statements, could the Leader of the House check with the Cabinet whether there ought to be, given that this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is becoming something of a serial offender in this respect, again had to be summoned to the House because once again he wanted to make a key announcement, but not to Members of Parliament? We understand that the Chancellor had suggested that the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury might have an airing, but thought better of it on account of the Chief Secretary being a bit nervy under fire. We are quite pleased that the Chief Secretary is to turn out today.

As it turned out, the Chancellor was announcing yet another commission. Just so that we know whether any decisions remain that are likely to be made by Ministers as opposed to being outsourced to a commission or review, will the right hon. Gentleman place details in the Library of all the commissions that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government have set up, all the reviews that have been announced, the number of people who are involved in the reviews and commissions, their terms of reference and their cost? Will he give us a pointer as to whether the Government need so many Ministers to carry out the business of government, given that there might not be a lot left for them to do after all the commissions and reviews have been set up?

I see that the Leader of the House spoke at the Hansard Society last night about altering party conferences. Obviously, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat conferences could be merged and simply called the Conservative party conference.

[Ms Winterton]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I simply wanted to ensure that if the Leader of the House intends to refer us to the Procedure Committee, as his speech suggested, there will be discussions with all the parties before that is done. I certainly have not been consulted and, as far as I know, nor have other parties. Will he ensure that consultation happens?

On anonymity for defendants in rape cases, we are now getting increasingly confusing and contradictory comments from the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister. Three weeks ago, the Government pledged to give defendants anonymity. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister appeared to change that position to one whereby the accused would be named only if prosecutors brought charges, and this week the Justice Secretary blamed the Liberal Democrats, saying that they had adopted the policy in opposition. There was further confusion at questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities today.

Ministers keep saying that they want a proper, considered discussion, but it is extremely difficult for hon. Members to contribute to any discussion when it is completely unclear which Minister is speaking for the Government. The policy seems to be the victim of hasty negotiations, but the real victims will be women who have been raped. The need for a proper debate on the subject has now become urgent, and I ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that he will allocate one of the Government’s general debates—we have a lot of them at the moment—to it.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. On the Ministry of Defence, Sir Bill Jeffrey and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have announced to their staff that they will retire in the autumn. Both stayed on longer than they originally intended to see things through over the election period and to get through the strategic defence and security review.

The Government have made many statements—nine since the Queen’s Speech. We have been very open with the House, and about five, perhaps even seven statements have been made this week. The Speaker has indicated that he wants more urgent questions, and that is a useful way to hold the Government to account and keep the House informed.

The Chief Secretary is robust under fire and can give as good as he can take.

I have answered a written question on reviews, referring to the coalition agreement, which sets out the Government’s key reviews and priorities. It is then up to individual Departments to provide information about their reviews.

In my compelling speech last night to the Hansard Society, I said that perhaps it was time for an open and serious debate, in which hon. Members of all parties should be engaged, about sitting hours and sittings in September, to ascertain whether we have the right configuration and whether we are making the best use of our time.

Anonymity for defendants in rape cases is a serious issue, about which there is a wide range of views. The Government are determined to drive up the conviction rate for rape and ensure that those who are convicted get serious sentences. I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is right for the House to debate the matter seriously and calmly, and I will do what I can to provide for such a debate.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on planning guidance for local councils now that the regional spatial strategies have been abolished? In my constituency and many surrounding rural constituencies, there are many proposals to erect vast numbers of wind turbines the size of the London Eye. I greatly hoped that we could have some guidance about extending what happens in Scotland and many other European countries so that we have an exclusion zone of 2 km from dwellings.

[Sir George Young]

I understand that my hon. Friend is not a fan of wind turbines. The Government’s view is that communities should be protected from the unacceptable impacts of development. Current planning policy in England is that the distance between a wind farm or turbine and a home should be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, I will bring my hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on competition among providers of liquefied petroleum gas to householders in rural areas? My constituents in the village of Llannon find themselves in an impossible situation because when one person has a contract with one company, no one else can go to another provider. That needs serious reconsideration.

[Sir George Young]

Like the hon. Lady, I have a rural constituency where many people are dependent on one supplier of LPG. Speaking from memory, I think that the Office of Fair Trading had been invited to conduct a review of the matter. I will draw her concern to the attention of the OFT and see whether the issue might be revisited.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know about the great success of the south of England show at Ardingly recently. Does he also know that I am president of the hounds show at Ardingly? Will he see what he can do to lay aside some Government time for a debate on the future of farming, particularly getting more young people into the industry, the security of the food supply in this country and essential research and development for the future of farming in Britain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I was not aware that my hon. Friend was president of the hounds show, but I am not surprised. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has attended several agricultural shows and I will draw her attention to the success of the one at Ardingly.

My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the future of farming and the need to increase young people’s interest in that career. I will do what I can to see whether we can provide a forum so that he can share with the House his important views on the subject.

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

Following my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House’s question, will the Leader of the House state when he took over responsibility for setting Labour party conference dates?

[Sir George Young]

That is a wilful misrepresentation of what I just said. I said that I think the House should have a serious debate about its sitting hours, when it sits in the summer and whether the 82-day summer recess that we have had in the past is the right way forward. I think all parties might consider whether party conferences are immoveable or whether there is a more intelligent way of reorganising the political year. I accept that it is not a matter for one party, but one for all parties and the House. I hope that the House will engage in that debate in the spirit in which I launched it.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the actions of bailiffs? The subject was mentioned in the coalition agreement and I am sure that many hon. Members have examples of constituents who have been targeted by bailiffs. As I understand it, that area of law is unclear and it would be helpful to have a debate.

[Sir George Young]

The coalition agreement is specific on the matter. We will provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charging orders, ensuring that courts have the power to insist that repossession is always a last resort and to ban orders for sale on unsecured debts of less than £25,000. Better regulation of bailiffs will be one of the strands of that policy as we develop it.

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

Last week at business questions, the Leader of the House, in response to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), indicated that allowances issues are no longer a matter for the House. Of course the administration of allowances is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but is the question of who is entitled to allowances still a matter for the House? Will he therefore correct the record, and in addition confirm that the administration of Short money is still a matter for the House, and that it will remain so?

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that last point—the administration of Short money is a matter for the House—and I answered questions on that last week. IPSA is responsible not only for the administration of the allowances but for the policy on allowances, as a number of hon. Members said in yesterday’s debate in Westminster Hall. IPSA has simply carried forward the regime that it inherited from the House on questions such as whether Members are entitled to pay or allowances. Under the current legislation, it remains a matter for IPSA to make any changes in the allowance regime.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May I add to the calls for a debate on regional spatial strategies? The Government’s decision to scrap housing targets was most welcome, but it poses questions for the future of Milton Keynes Partnership—the unelected quango in my constituency—its role as a planning authority, the ownership of the land bank and the future of the local plan. A debate would help to clarify those points.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that Communities and Local Government Ministers can address the issues he has outlined, and see whether responsibility can be passed down to the locally elected local authorities in his constituency.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is growing concern that further increasing student fees will deter students from poorer backgrounds. I am meeting Luke Young, the president of the Swansea students’ union, next week. When will the right hon. Gentleman timetable a debate on student fees, particularly when we should be tooling up all our young people, but particularly those from poorer backgrounds, for the recovery that we all hope is ahead?

[Sir George Young]

That is a devolved matter in Wales. So far as England is concerned, we are awaiting the outcome of the inquiry by Lord Browne of Madingley. One of the key things that the Government will be looking at is exactly what the hon. Gentleman mentioned— whether any changes would impede or promote access to higher education by students from low-income families.

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

Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on Members who refuse to take their seats and fail to give proper representation to their constituents?

[Sir George Young]

That is a candidate for debate, and a sensitive issue. I can give no guarantee that the Government will find time for such a debate, but it is a perfectly legitimate candidate for a debate in Westminster Hall.

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

Yesterday the North report, which recommends reductions in drink-driving limits, was published. An hour or so ago, the Secretary of State for Transport said that there would be consultation in Government Departments on the proposals, yet newspapers have been full of reports—inspired, it would appear, by ministerial briefings—that the proposals would be rejected. One headline states: “Motorists escape bid to lower drink-drive limit”. Will the Government agree to a debate in Government time to clarify their policy on drink-drive limits? The Leader of the House is a great supporter of road safety, so I hope he agrees to such a debate, and confirms that the Government will be positive about reducing drink-drive limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

This is an important issue and our priority is to tackle drink and drug driving in the most effective way. I listened to the Transport Secretary’s response a few moments ago, and I did not detect the equivocation that the hon. Gentleman alleges. The Transport Secretary said that the report covered a wide range of issues and made 51 detailed recommendations, which the Departments concerned need to consider carefully. He also said that the Government would respond to Sir Peter in due course. However, on top of that, I agree that it is an appropriate matter for the House to debate.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

One of my constituents recently turned up for duty in court as a witness and spent most of the day there, but was then sent home because no other witnesses turned up. He wasted most of his day but, more importantly, the court case had to be delayed again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider more measures to ensure that witnesses are made to turn up when they are required, so that cases are not postponed or even put off altogether?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady is seeking either a statement or debate.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that we use the resources of the court system effectively, so that the sort of waste to which she refers does not occur. I will contact the Justice Secretary and share her concerns with him, and see whether the Government have proposals for making better use of the available resources.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On 26 May, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to the House and said in answer to an urgent question on the future jobs fund that Government

“policy…has to be informed by the facts, and…advice…from the Department for Work and Pensions”.

He added that that advice was that the fund

“was…not effective and that the money was wasted.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 164.]

However, when I visited my constituency’s district Jobcentre Plus office on Monday, I was told that it was far too early to judge the effectiveness of the scheme, because no data are yet available. May I suggest that we have a debate on the scheme, so that we can work out whether what we are being told about the DWP’s view of the matter is a reflection of what is happening on the ground?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for a debate. The future jobs scheme cost about £6,500 per place, which is about five times the cost of other components of a similar programme. Many of the jobs were relatively low-paid and insecure, and many were in the public sector. The Government believe that we have better approaches to dealing with unemployment—namely, the Work programme—but I hope that it will be possible at some point to discuss the issues that he raises. That could happen in the context of the Budget debate, because I believe that the Work and Pensions Secretary will speak then.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Mr Speaker, as the defender of the rights of MPs, I am sure that you were aware of the debate on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that took place in Westminster Hall yesterday, which about 50 Members attended, and of the excellent speech made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). The matter cannot be allowed to remain there; we need to take it forward. The Leader of the House will know that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the

“interface between parliamentary privilege and IPSA’s decisions”

and

“the privilege of freedom from obstruction in the performance of parliamentary duties.”

He quoted pages 75 and 143 of “Erskine May”, and referred to what it says under the heading, “Obstructing Members of either House in the discharge of their duty”.

With that in mind, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that we had a Minister at the Dispatch Box for a debate, because the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling concluded that IPSA

“is obstructing Members in the efficient and effective discharge of their parliamentary duties”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 144-145WH.]

[Sir George Young]

I attended that debate and heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) make that speech. The debate was, of course, replied to by a Minister from the Cabinet Office. If any Member believes that there has been a breach of privilege, a procedure can be followed, which involves an approach to Mr Speaker.

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

During Transport questions, the Secretary of State made it clear that his priorities are encouraging economic growth and reducing carbon emissions, yet Transport for London is proposing massive job cuts and the closure of virtually every ticket office on the London underground. Those actions will impact directly against the Secretary of State’s hopes. May we have a debate on that, and not least on what seems to be a marked lack of communication between the coalition Government and the Conservative Mayor of London?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but the staffing of individual underground stations is a matter for TfL, which may be having to do what Departments are having to do: coping with the economic legacy that we have inherited. Perhaps at some point Opposition Members will tell us where the £50 billion of cuts they identified before the election would have applied.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the big society? Many community organisations in Harlow are keen adopters of the big society reforms that will do so much to transform voluntary groups up and down our country.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Prime Minister’s speech on the big society has indeed whetted the appetite of voluntary organisations up and down the country for further development of that policy. I agree that the question of how we engage the resources of the third sector is important. I am not making a commitment, but I should like to find time for a debate if we can.

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

Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House if he would kindly urge the Home Secretary to update us on the review of dangerous dogs legislation initiated under the last Government. He said that the Home Secretary would do so during the Queen’s Speech debate, but unfortunately that did not happen. May I again urge him to ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and update us on the review of that legislation?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and if there has been a discourtesy, I apologise. I will pursue the issue further, and Home Office questions will be held on 28 June, when she may have an opportunity to raise the matter again.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What is my right hon. Friend’s thinking in changing the hours of Tuesday’s Budget day to those of a Wednesday sitting? Should we take that change as a pilot for changes to future Tuesdays?

[Sir George Young]

It would be wrong to read too much into the changing of the time for the Budget debate. After consultation, we took the view that it would be for the convenience of the House to begin the debate a little earlier. My hon. Friend makes the point that at some stage we will need to look at the sittings of the House. We have many new Members and we have to operate within a slightly different regime, so there is an appetite for intelligent debate about how the House uses its time.

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

The Leader of the House raised the issue of the recess. Midsummer’s day is in four days’ time, but Parliament does not start its so-called summer recess until five weeks later. May we for once have a summer recess in the summer, a shorter recess and one that takes place during the Scottish school holidays, which are, of course, actually in the summer? That could help MPs to be more available to their constituents at summer events. May we have a debate on the timing of the recess?

[Sir George Young]

I do understand that for MPs with Scottish constituencies the summer recess does not coincide with the school holidays in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point made in earlier exchanges about the need to stand back and look at when the House sits and consider whether we make the best use of our time.

[Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

In opposition, the Leader of the House was always a supporter of enhanced post-legislative scrutiny and, in particular, of finding time for debates on Law Commission reports. Can he update the House on what plans he has in that respect, and does he think that there is too much legislation or too little?

[Sir George Young]

I think that there has been too much legislation. We are determined to have less legislation and better drafted Bills, with proper time allowed for the House to reflect on them. That will be a transformation compared with what happened in the last Parliament.

Good governance involves post-legislative scrutiny, as well as the production of draft Bills and a pre-legislative stage. Every Department should produce a summary, a few years after legislation has been enacted, stating whether it has met its objectives, and Select Committees have a role to play in post-legislative scrutiny, as well as their other tasks. In a word, the answer is yes.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

For several weeks, I have been attempting to obtain support from IPSA to offer jobs to people who want to work in my constituency office. The failure of IPSA to respond to me by phone or e-mail is putting tremendous pressure on my office’s ability to provide a service to the people of Chesterfield who sent me here. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what support he can give to new Members who are attempting to staff their offices, but who are having to rely on voluntary contributions to provide a service to their constituents?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to provide the service that he wants because of difficulties with the allowance regime. The whole object of the allowance regime is to enable MPs to look after their constituents and hold Ministers to account. If it is not doing that, it is a serious matter. I will ensure that the interim chief executive is aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised and that he gets a prompt response.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House said that he wants less legislation, but there could not be any less legislation than at present, because he has announced none. When will we have a Second Reading on one of the many plans for legislation that the Government have announced, so that we can scrutinise it, and when will he set up the European Scrutiny Committee, so that we can scrutinise their plans on Europe?

[Sir George Young]

In the Queen’s Speech, we outlined 22 Bills for an 18-month Session. We have already introduced three of them—one in the House and two in the other place—and I anticipate a finance Bill before too long. I also anticipate two more Second Readings before the summer recess.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Government arrange, in Government time, a debate on the effects on employment of Government policies? I estimate that the recently announced cuts will cost at least 30 jobs in Slough—a town where unemployment has fallen month on month since the start of the year. Will the Government give us a chance to discuss the effects of what they are doing?

[Sir George Young]

May I return the compliment and suggest that the Opposition use one of their Opposition days to explain where they would have found the £50 billion cuts that were factored into their pre-election statements? They never told us where those cuts would come from, and they would have included some £18 billion of cuts to the capital programme. They said that they would tell us after the election where they would find those cuts, and the time is now ripe.

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

Will the Leader of the House arrange for someone from the Government to come here and tell us why they are afraid of scrutiny of their behaviour in Europe and why they have not set up the European Scrutiny Committee, which was the first Committee set up in the last Parliament by the previous Government? Are they afraid of the Euroscepticism generated on their Benches when they were in pre-election mode, or are they afraid of the ESC, which of course won an inquisitor of the year award when we had a Labour Government and it had a Labour Chair?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done on the ESC. I am aware that documents continue to arrive from Europe that need scrutiny and that, at the moment, there is no ESC. There is no conspiracy along the lines that he suggests. Urgent discussions are taking place along the usual channels, and I hope that it will not be too long before we can establish the ESC. I am sure that whoever chairs it will do a fantastic job.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

In the light of the Alston report to the United Nations, a debate on the conventions used in the deployment of advanced military technology would allow us to debate whether international law has to be reformulated as a result of that report. Do the Government believe that drone planes should be used for the targeted extra-judicial killings of suspected terrorists?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for him to make that point in the debate on the strategic defence review, but I will certainly pass his concerns on to the Ministry of Defence and ensure that he receives a reply.

[Mr Speaker]

Last, but not least, I call Mr MacShane.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Thank you for the introduction, Mr Speaker.

Last night, Europe’s Conservative party leaders and Prime Ministers met for dinner, with the exception of our Prime Minister, because he is in alliance with—as the Deputy Prime Minister puts it—“nutters, anti-Semites...and homophobes”. May we have an early debate on rise of nationalist, populist extremism in eastern Europe, the worries of Jewish communities and the extent to which the Conservative party—not the Liberal Democrats—are giving cover by their alliance with these people?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry that business questions are ending on that note. The right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing this issue for many months, but there is no substance in the accusations that he has made about our colleagues. I am sure that given more time he could have found a better question to ask on the business.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.

Backbench Business Committee

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That the following new Standing Order be made:—

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Backbench Business Committee, to determine the backbench business to be taken in the House and in Westminster Hall on days, or parts of days, allotted for backbench business.

(2) The committee shall consist of a chair and seven other Members, of whom four shall be a quorum.

(3) The chair and other members of the committee shall continue as members of the committee for the remainder of the Session in which they are elected unless replaced under the provisions of Standing Order No. (Election of Backbench Business Committee).

(4) The chair and members of the committee shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. (Election of Backbench Business Committee).

(5) No Member who is a Minister of the Crown or parliamentary private secretary or a principal opposition front-bench spokesperson shall be eligible to be the chair or a member of the committee: the Speaker’s decision shall be final on such matters.

(6) The committee shall have power to invite Government officials to attend all or part of any of its meetings.

(7) The committee shall determine the backbench business to be taken—

(a) in the House on any day, or any part of any day, allotted under paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No. 14, and

(b) in Westminster Hall, in accordance with paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No. 10, and shall report its determinations to the House.

(8) At the commencement of any business in the House or in Westminster Hall which has been determined by the committee, a member of the committee shall make a brief statement of no more than five minutes explaining the committee’s reasons for its determination.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss motions 3 to 15 inclusive.

[Sir George Young]

This is the first time I have spoken with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I welcome you. As the Deputy Leader of the House said in the final stages of the debate that has just ended, we will not be moving motion 13, and I shall explain why not in a moment.

Today we are presenting the House with an opportunity to seize back some of the powers that have been taken away by the Government. We want to restore to Back-Bench Members greater control over the business of the House than they have had for not only a generation, but more than a century. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said earlier, in future, how long debates such as this last and whether they should be segmented into their component parts will be a matter for the House and the Back-Bench business committee, and no one will be more pleased about that than the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.

In tabling the motions on the Order Paper, we are pressing ahead with the implementation of the Wright Committee’s proposals by setting up the Back-Bench business committee that was endorsed so emphatically by the House in the previous Parliament, and delivering the first of the Government’s commitments on parliamentary reform from the coalition agreement. Although many members of the Wright Committee are no longer in the House, I pay tribute to them, and to those who remain, for a ground-breaking report produced in record time. I similarly commend the work of Parliament First, which is continuing to set the pace on reform.

Although many useful reforms were introduced in the last 13 years—debates in Westminster Hall, better sitting hours and the replacement of Standing Committees with Public Bill Committees—on some occasions the momentum was frustrated by the previous Government. If one looks at the delays and prevarications in setting up the Wright Committee and debating its report—and, indeed, reaching a conclusion on its central recommendation of a Back-Bench committee—they make the case more eloquently than anything else for the Government to relinquish their iron grip on the procedures and agenda of the House. Now we are finally giving the House a chance to debate and vote on that issue.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the context of the iron grip to which my right hon. Friend refers, is there any reason why we cannot have the committee for an entire Parliament?

[Sir George Young]

I will come in a moment to the question of whether the committee should be established for one year or five years.

I turn now to Standing Order No. 14. It is just over 107 years—in fact it was on 1 December 1902—since the House first passed a Standing Order governing the precedence of business at different sittings. That was the predecessor of today’s Standing Order No. 14, which provides for Government business to have precedence at every sitting, with certain exceptions. The motions before the House today will change that proposition radically. For the first time in over a century, the House will be given control over significant parts of its own agenda.

The new committee will give Back Benchers the power and time to schedule debates on issues that matter to them and to their constituents, and allow the House to become more responsive to the world outside. Motions 2 to 5 establish the committee, make arrangements for its election by secret ballot of the whole House and set out its powers and role. Much of what we propose is self-explanatory and, in the interests of brevity, I will direct my remarks towards those points that I feel need some further explanation, and on which Members have tabled amendments.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that to be effective the Back-Bench committee must include Back Benchers from every part of this House, including the minority parties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

The Wright Committee is specific about the size of the committee, which it said should have between seven and nine members. We have proposed that it should have eight members. The chair will be elected by the same process as other elected Select Committee Chairs, but with no prior party allocation—so the hon. Gentleman would be free to stand. There will be total freedom to choose a chair from either side of the House. The remaining members will then be elected by another secret ballot, using the same system as for the Deputy Speakers in order to ensure overall party and gender balance. We propose that, in the first instance, the committee should be re-elected every Session.

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

It is surely not possible to reflect the balance in the House with so few members.

[Sir George Young]

We are implementing the recommendations of the Wright Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member. The Wright Committee said that the committee should have between seven and nine members, and we are proposing that it should have eight members—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not have been able to persuade other members of the Wright Committee to recommend a larger business committee that would have greater opportunity to include minority parties, but the proposition—

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

May I attempt to help the Leader of the House?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman will help me, I will of course give way.

[Mr Allen]

I cannot remember an occasion on which I did anything other than help the Leader of the House. I even attempted to help previous Leaders of the House. I shall try to elaborate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). The Back-Bench committee is the culmination of a process. When it meets and puts its report to the House, that will be the summit of a process that will involve much wider and deeper consultations with all parties and any Back Bencher who wishes to participate. So we do not need to have a vast, all-encompassing committee that would be too bulky to work properly. The members of the Wright Committee felt that that was an appropriate approach and we had no intention of trying to freeze anyone out.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I may give way to him later if I feel that he can elucidate my points as well as he has just elucidated that one.

I turn now to the question of why the committee should be elected every year. The committee will have power to schedule business in the House and Westminster Hall. Given the significance of this, we believe that members of the committee should be accountable to their peers for the decisions they take in scheduling debates. This will not affect the eligibility of the chair and members, who will still be able to offer themselves for re-election. This will be by secret ballot, so there is no question of Members coming under the malign influence of the usual channels in making their choices. As well as providing accountability, it will, I hope, also provide a way of bringing new blood on to the committee from time to time, to keep its thinking fresh.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I concur with the point made by hon. Members from the minority parties, because it is important that the whole House has the opportunity to be represented on the committee. However, motion 3(1)(c) states that

“no fewer than ten”

of the nominators

“shall be members of the candidate’s party”.

That may be an oversight, but perhaps the Leader of the House can explain how it would be possible for Members from the minority parties or independent Members to be nominated. I am sure that the intention is not to exclude them, but that wording might need Mr Speaker to interpret it flexibly when it came to nominations.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out those restrictions which might preclude the nomination of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for chair of the committee, unless he was minded to join a larger party for a day.

If colleagues believe that the committee should be accountable to the House, they might wish to resist the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North, which would have the committee elected for the whole Parliament.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has tabled an amendment to increase the size of the committee, and I have already dealt with that point. Although I understand the reason behind his amendment, the review may also be able to consider it.

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

My right hon. Friend is involved in a historic shift of power to this House that is extremely welcome, but will he consider the balance that needs to be struck between accountability and independence? Members of the Back-Bench business committee may be able to act more courageously and independently if they do not feel under threat of defeat at an election.

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that I buy that point. The object of the Back-Bench business committee is to reflect the views of the House in selecting the agenda for discussion. I am not sure that a display of heroic independence—to an extent that led the committee away from the centre of gravity of the House—is what the committee should be about.

Motion 4 defines Back-Bench business and provides for the committee to have 35 days at its disposal in the House and in Westminster Hall. This is one of the central recommendations of the report, but it is important to remember the bigger picture. The Wright Committee noted:

“The single greatest cause of dissatisfaction…with current scheduling of legislative business in the House arises from the handling of the report stage of government bills.”

In implementing one part of the Wright report, it is important not to undermine what another part of the same report says. In addition, the Back-Bench business committee is only half of the picture, and we must not lose sight of the progress that we want to see made in the third year of this Parliament on a House business committee. The creation of a House committee—looking at both the scheduling of Government and Back-Bench time as a single entity—will be better able to balance the time more effectively between debates and scrutiny.

I shall explain briefly how the proposals will work. The committee will have a total of 35 days at its disposal, which equates, as the Wright Committee recommended, to about one day per sitting week. The time will be divided between the House and Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee will have 20 Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall for debates on Select Committee reports, and all other Thursdays will be for business determined by the Back-Bench business committee. Each of these Thursdays will count as half a day towards the total allocation of 35. In a typical Session of about 35 sitting weeks, therefore, the committee will use seven or eight days of its allocation in Westminster Hall debates, and the remainder—about 27 or 28 days—will be taken in the Chamber. Some of that time may be taken in the form of 90-minute topical debates, under Standing Order No. 24A, which will count as a quarter of a day; and I am happy to say that I see no difficulty in accepting amendment (a) to motion 4, which encapsulates the 27 days in the form I just outlined.

It may also be helpful if I say to the House that it is my intention to invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether the sittings in Westminster Hall could be extended to allow for sittings on Monday afternoons. That would provide the Back-Bench business committee with even more flexibility in how it schedules business. In future, it will also be for the Back-Bench business committee, not the Government, to schedule debates on pre-recess Adjournments, on set-piece debates on defence, Welsh affairs and international women’s day, and on topical debates. These decisions will rest entirely in its hands, and just as I am accountable to the House for Government business, so it will be so accountable for Back-Bench business.

Finally on the Wright Committee recommendations, we propose that the operation of the new system should be reviewed at the beginning of the next Session, in late 2011. I recognise that there is concern about the reasoning behind this review, but the object of the review is to enable the House to move forwards, rather than, as some have said, to wind back. There is absolutely no intention to shut down the Back-Bench committee after the first Session. We are committed to establishing a House business committee, dealing with both Government and Back-Bench business, by the third year of this Parliament, so a review of the Back-Bench business committee any later than that would make no sense. I would therefore urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North not to press his amendment deferring the review until the beginning of the next Parliament, which, as I said, will be after the House business committee has been set up.

I shall now deal briefly in turn with each of the remaining motions on the Order Paper.

[Mr Allen]

If having a review every year is such a good system, will it be extended to decisions on Select Committees, the occupant of the Chair and perhaps even to Government Ministers? If it is so good to review everybody and put everything up in the air annually, does the Leader of the House intend to extend the practice?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the Wright Committee, which said that its recommendations needed to be implemented in stages. To that extent, the proposals before the House are different from those that govern other Select Committees, which are well established and do not need to be subject to review to make progress. For example, I have just outlined that we have not gone the whole way on the 35 days—they will not all be allocated to the Chamber—but I hope to make progress, and the review that I have outlined will enable the Government and the Back-Bench committee to see what progress has been made and how the momentum might be driven further forward.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My experience in the Leader of the House’s office was that one was not necessarily in charge of one’s destiny in these matters, and that the relationship with Whips tended to be difficult when it came to allowing things to go forward—

[Chris Bryant]

I see there is a charming Whip saying the whole world has changed, but I do not think that is true. The Leader of the House is asking the House to take it on trust that at some stage he will come forward with further proposals. That means we have a long way to go.

[Sir George Young]

At the end of the day, it is of course up to the House to deal with the matter. The Chief Whip is as my brother on these matters. If the hon. Gentleman reads the coalition agreement, he will see a clear commitment to implementing the Wright Committee recommendations in full. That is in the coalition agreement and that is why we want the review—to make further progress towards full implementation.

In February, the previous Parliament resolved that the new Parliament should have an early opportunity to decide on the issue of September sittings—indeed, sufficiently early to be able to decide on them this year. Motion 10 gives effect to that decision.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a great argument on the importance of increasing the powers of the House as against the Executive. Does he not consider it ironic, therefore, that he is proposing, in motion 10, that in order to reaffirm

“the importance of its function of holding the Government to account”

the House should ask

“the Government to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in September 2010.”?

Should the Back-Bench business committee not have been invited to consider whether September sittings are appropriate, and if so, to come forward with proposals for how they should be organised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

The Back-Bench committee does not yet exist, and the recommendation of the Wright Committee was that the House should have an early opportunity to decide on it. The House can only do that if we give it the opportunity today. So we are implementing the Wright Committee recommendations in full by giving the House the opportunity to decide whether it wants to sit in September.

The House already sits for longer than almost any other comparative legislature in the democratic world, but it is obvious that the public do not easily understand why MPs are effectively unable to scrutinise the Government over the lengthy summer recesses, some of which have stretched out over a fairly long period of 82 days. I have already announced that, subject to the will of the House tonight, the House will sit for two weeks from 6 September. Unlike in previous September sittings that the House has experimented with, I fully expect there to be substantive business for the House to consider during that period. This is not a cosmetic change, but a declaration of intent.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I just want my right hon. Friend to know that some of us think that this is a huge advance. We want a Parliament that is serious, and able to dictate more of its own agenda and to hold the Government to account. It is remarkable that a Government are keeping their word and offering just that.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his robust support for the propositions before the House.

The Government have set out the dates of the 13 Fridays provided for in Standing Orders to allow consideration of private Members’ Bills. Amendment (a) to motion 11 would provide extra days for the consideration of such Bills in this Session. Private Members who have been successful in this year’s ballot will be advantaged by the fact that the longer Session allows for more time between the Fridays provided for consideration of their Bills on the Floor of the House. That will allow more time for Members to progress their Bills outside the Chamber, in Committee or the other place. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), when we debated this matter in the last Session, that I would not

“commit any future Administration to an increase in the pro rata number”—[Official Report, 6 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 228.]

of private Members’ Fridays in the first Session of this Parliament, and that, I am afraid, is what I will do.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Fridays several times. As one who has been fortunate enough to steer two private Members’ Bills through both Houses, in very difficult circumstances and on Fridays, I would like to know whether we are stuck with Fridays? Are private Members not to be given the same rights as Government spokespersons?

[Sir George Young]

The Wright report recognised deep dissatisfaction with the current system for private Members’ Bills, which was last considered by the Procedure Committee in 2002-03, so I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s anxiety. My view is that the House might feel it is time, once again, to give this issue proper consideration. The Procedure Committee ought to consider it in one of its first inquiries and look at the procedures and scheduling in the round. That, rather than addressing concerns in a piecemeal way—as provided for in some of the amendments—is the right way to do it.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend referred accurately to our exchange in the last Parliament. During that debate, he was very sympathetic to the argument that, if we have a Session lasting 18 months, there should be more private Members’ time than in a Session lasting for only one year. Surely his argument that private Members will be advantaged by the gap between the Fridays is a bit disingenuous because whether a private Member can get legislation through depends on the time available at Report, which is why we need more private Members’ Fridays.

[Sir George Young]

My response to my hon. Friend is the one that I have just given. Rather than just look at the question of how many Fridays a private Member’s Bill has, one ought to stand back and look at the whole procedure for private Members’ Bills, and ask whether Friday is the right day, whether the pathway through the House is the right one and whether it is too easy to impede progress. That is the right way to approach private Members’ Bills: through a proper consideration by the Procedure Committee, rather than a one-off amendment this afternoon.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

As a member of the Procedure Committee in 2002, I can say that the most fundamental change to have taken place over this period is the reduction in our hours on Wednesday and Thursday. Perhaps the Procedure Committee could look into extending our hours on Wednesday and Thursday nights, so that private Members’ Bills could be considered then.

[Sir George Young]

That is a helpful suggestion that I am sure the Procedure Committee would like to take on board.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Sir George Young]

No, I am going to move on, as I am conscious that a large number of Members want to speak.

Motion 12 extends the time allowed for voting on deferred Divisions by one hour, by starting the voting time at 11.30 am instead of 12.30 pm. That means that Members can vote before Prime Minister’s questions, which should ease the number of Members trying to vote directly after questions. I hope that Members will support this small but helpful innovation.

There are two motions on the Order Paper relating to Select Committees. On Select Committee sizes, let me explain the reason for originally tabling those motions. The previous Parliament agreed in February to a reduction in the standard size of Select Committees, from 14 to 11, which was introduced for most Committees at the start of this Session. The Wright report expressed concern about the number of places to be filled on Select Committees, which had doubled since 1979. As well as reducing the standard membership to 11, the Government have eased the strain by abolishing the Regional Select Committees, which has reduced the number of places to be filled by 81, and by abolishing the Modernisation Committee.

However, the Wright report recognised that

“Members in individual cases can be added to specific committees to accommodate the legitimate demands of the smaller parties”.

The demography of the House has undergone a major change since then. For the first time since 1974, a general election has returned a House with no overall majority. It was the Government’s intention to allow representation in the Select Committee system for the minority parties, which have an important role to play in holding the Government to account in this new-look Parliament. Our intention was to make swift progress on setting up Select Committees, in line with the six weeks that Wright recommended. However, having looked at the Order Paper, I recognise that a large number of colleagues, many of whom are distinguished Chairs of Select Committees, have concerns about the course of action that we have proposed. In line with this Government’s desire for a more collaborative relationship with the House than a confrontational one, it is not our intention to move that motion at the end of today, but to come back to the House soon, after further consultation with the interested parties.

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

Let me express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for taking that matter away. I should be delighted to have the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on the Justice Committee, but not if he has to be attended by an army of four other extra members. I hope that the Leader of the House can initiate a discussion to find a more satisfactory way of dealing with that matter.

[Sir George Young]

It is just such consultation that I want to promote. Let me put it on record that it is our intention to ensure that minority parties continue to have representation on Select Committees, just as they did in the previous Parliament, as is proper in a United Kingdom Parliament.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I will give way once more, but then I really must make progress.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that in finding a solution to that problem, he will remember that on 22 February he said:

“Having been the Chairman of a Select Committee, I have long thought that the size of membership should be no more than 11 to allow for a more focused discussion and a more manageable meeting.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 49.]

I am delighted that he is showing both good sense and consistency.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One of the members of the small Committee that I chaired was from a minority party, so it is possible to have representation, even on a reduced size, from Members from the smaller parties.

[Joan Walley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, but for the last time.

[Joan Walley]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of what he has said about the possibility of there not being a vote on the issue today, let me flag up an issue that I have flagged up previously, about the Environmental Audit Committee. Just for the record, it was originally set up along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee, which has 16 members, on account of there being a Finance Minister and shadow Ministers among its members. However, in practice, it has not been easy on some occasions to achieve a quorum on the Environmental Audit Committee from among its 16 members. I would therefore be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give some consideration to the numbers on the Environmental Audit Committee and come back to the House at an appropriate time.

[Sir George Young]

I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I should be happy to engage in that discussion and see whether we can reduce the numbers in line with those in the other Select Committees.

If agreed, motion 14 on the Order Paper would change the name of one of the departmental Select Committees from the Children, Schools and Families Committee to the Education Committee. That will align the Committee to the Department that it scrutinises, the name of which changed following the election. Finally, motion 15 would change the sitting times on Tuesday 22 June, so that the House would sit at 11.30 am, instead of the normal start time of 2.30 pm. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that 22 June is Budget day. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the earlier start time will be for the convenience of the whole House.

This Government believe in a strong Parliament—one that is fearless in holding the Executive to account, effective at scrutinising legislation, responsive to the demands of its constituents and relevant to the national interest. I believe that the decisions that the House will make today will be remembered long into the future, as a defining moment of parliamentary reform. I commend the motion to the House.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 14 June will include:

Monday 14 June—General debate on UK policy on the middle east, followed by general debate on emerging economies.

Tuesday 15 June—The House will be asked to approve motions relating to the establishment of a Back-Bench business committee, September sittings, private Members’ Bills, deferred Divisions, Select Committee sizes and sittings of the House.

Wednesday 16 June—Opposition day [1st Allotted day]. There will be a full-day’s debate on Government support for industry. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 17 June—General debate on building a high-skilled economy.

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



Monday 21 June—General debate on strategic defence and security review.

Tuesday 22 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Wednesday 23 June—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Thursday 24 June—Continuation of the Budget debate.

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

Thursday 24 June—A debate on the future of local media.

May I offer my congratulations to the new Deputy Speakers who were successful in the ballot this week: the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo)? May I wish them every success in carrying out their important duties and pass on the thanks of the House to those they replaced for the undoubted service they offered over many years? May I also pass on my congratulations to those Members who you, Mr. Speaker, have just announced as having been successfully elected as Chairs of Select Committees? This is undoubtedly a landmark in the history of the House. I warmly congratulate those who have secured the approval of their colleagues to undertake the vital task of scrutinising Government Departments. This is an important reform—part of a process of transferring power from the Executive to the House, which I intend to progress in my role as Leader of the House.

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the forthcoming business and I add my congratulations to the new Deputy Speakers and the new Chairs of Select Committees.

With regard to Tuesday’s business, the Government have today tabled proposed new Standing Orders on the new Back-Bench business committee. Frankly, however, no proper consultation took place with the Opposition on the detail of those before they were tabled. Would it not be right for the new Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, whose Chair has just been announced, to look at those before they are debated by the House? I hope the Leader of the House will give a detailed response to that.

Business questions always provide a good opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to bring us up to speed on how his leak-prevention strategy is going. Last week, he said it was going splendidly, but I am afraid that I must draw his attention to what he might regard as a slight seepage rather than a leak, although it is nevertheless alarming. The BBC seems to have been told by “sources” that the Liberal Democrats are doing a deal with the Government so that they continue to receive Short money, which was designed specifically for Opposition parties. On top of that, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has been elected deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. Many congratulations to him; he was here a minute ago. In his manifesto, he said

“For those departments where there is no Liberal Democrat minister, we should have a shadow secretary of state in the Commons… For those departments where there is a Liberal Democrat minister and a Conservative Secretary of State, then there should be a Liberal Democrat lead spokesperson in the Commons… For those departments where there is a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, there should be a Liberal Democrat MP outside of government with particular responsibility for that department's business.”

There was a time, I believe, when the Tory and Labour parties agreed that the Liberal Democrats tended to say one thing but do another. This has taken that to a whole new level. The Liberal Democrats say that they are in opposition, but actually do government. The new deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways, and I hope that the Leader of the House can assure us that there are no such shenanigans going on with the Short money.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Justice Secretary, when he comes to the House for Question Time on Tuesday, to put right the comments made by the Home Secretary during the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the British crime survey, which is widely recognised as the most effective way of measuring long-term crime trends, shows that under the Labour Government crime fell by a third. Violent crime fell by 41%, burglary by 54%, and car crime by 57%. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to explain why she is still trying to avoid using the survey? Of course, the Tory party has form in this regard: the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was rebuked by the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority for damaging public trust by manipulating crime figures. Not only is the Home Secretary in danger of misleading the House, but she is being very unfair to all those who worked so hard to reduce crime under the Labour Government.

I do not think the Leader of the House was in the Chamber to hear the Adjournment debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who spoke eloquently and effectively about the Conservative-Liberal Democrat proposals for defendant anonymity in rape cases. The response of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), was frankly disappointing, and showed very little understanding of the message that he was sending to rape victims. He did say, however, that the Government wanted informed contributions, and would consider all the options before formulating the proposals.

Given that legislation is not ready in a number of cases, and that we are having a number of general debates, may I urge the Leader of the House to allocate one of the future general debates to discussion of this important issue? If the Government are serious about listening before the proposals are presented, I really cannot see why Government time cannot be allocated to it.

[Sir George Young]

I was disappointed by the right hon. Lady’s first request. She asked for the establishment of a business committee to be delayed yet further. The reason that the matter is on the Order Paper for next Tuesday is that the previous Government failed to make progress. We are honouring a commitment made in the last Parliament by me and by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, to set up a Back-Bench business committee as soon as possible. Referring the matter to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee would simply redo the work of the Wright Committee, and would further delay the establishment of a committee on which I want to make progress. What we are doing is relinquishing the grip of the Executive on the agenda of the House, and giving Back Benchers the power and the time to schedule debates on the matters that they believe are important. When we reach the debate next Tuesday, I hope the House will seize the opportunity with both hands and make real progress with parliamentary reform.

On the right hon. Lady’s second point, there has been no leak. I make it absolutely clear that Short money is available to Opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats are a party of government and therefore Short money is not available to them. I have no ministerial responsibility for what the newly elected deputy leader of the Liberal party wants to do in rearranging the internal machinery of that party.

So far as the Home Secretary is concerned, I was present when she made a fantastic speech to wind up Monday’s debate, in which she dealt with all the issues regarding crime and crime statistics and set out some robust policies from the Government to deal with crime.

Finally, on the Adjournment debate, I was not present but I have read it. The issue is serious and we want to get things right. We agree entirely with the Stern review that serious consideration of the issue is needed, but there is ample time to debate it because no legislation on it is proposed for this Session. One of the objectives of setting up a Back-Bench business committee is to enable it to respond to requests for debates on important issues such as rape, so that they can be debated without the House continuing to be wholly dependent on the Government to find time to debate them.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 188 in my name?

[That this House looks forward to the 2010 Trooping the Colour ceremony on Saturday 12 June 2010 to mark the Official Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; notes with pride that the flags of all the nations of the Commonwealth are always displayed in and around Horse Guards Parade for this great occasion; calls on the Government to ensure that the flags of all Her Majesty's Territories are also flown in time for the ceremony, including Her Majesty's Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, together with Her Majesty's Overseas Territories of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cuhna, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands.]

My right hon. Friend will recall that on numerous occasions under the previous Government, I raised the issue of the failure to fly the flags of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies on the occasion of Her Majesty’s birthday parade Trooping the Colour. Will the Government change that policy and ensure that the flags will fly this Saturday, and will he ask the relevant Minister to make an urgent statement on this before Saturday?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but he presents me with a challenging time scale if he wants me to do something by Saturday. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I hope that he draws heart from that. I will raise with the appropriate authorities my hon. Friend’s robust request, which is backed up by others who have signed his early-day motion, and I will make sure that he gets a response.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate on the revised police grant? As he will know, a £125 million in-year reduction has been made to the grant I agreed as the relevant Minister in only February of this year. I am anxious to explore how the Liberal Democrat promise of putting 3,000 extra police officers on the street is matched by the Conservative Government’s cut of £125 million.

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen today’s written ministerial statement on the subject. He will find that it says that the matter is subject to the approval of the House.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The coalition agreement says:

“We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full”.

Does the Leader of the House understand the concern of many MPs that the motion he has put forward does not represent the Wright reforms in full, particularly in the loss of days in the Chamber for Back-Bench business? Will he be open to representations on the issue with a view to improving the motion on the Order Paper?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. If she reads the Wright Committee report, she will see that it says right at the beginning that the proposals need to be implemented “in stages”. There is a real issue with moving straight to having 35 days in the Chamber: there would be implications regarding the amount of time for which the House sits and, more seriously, it would run the real risk of squeezing out time for the Report stage of Bills—an issue that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we can debate the matter more extensively on Tuesday, but I can say that at least 27 of those 35 days will be on the Floor of the House. That is an improvement on the 12 days for set-piece debates that we have at the moment.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I have recently received a letter from my local Age Concern expressing its deep concern about the axing of the future jobs fund. When can an early debate on the issue be timetabled?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady might have seen today’s written statement from the Minister with responsibility for employment, which sets out our strategy to move away from the current raft of different schemes, many of which do not provide good value for money, to a single work programme this time next year. We have set out our strategy. There is a debate on poverty that she might be able to use ingeniously to raise the issue. There are 5 million people on out-of-work benefits. We inherited a situation with rising long-term unemployment and we genuinely believe that the single work programme that we are introducing, with a tailor-made package for individuals, is a better way forward than the raft of regimes that we inherited.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Given that Labour left university funding in a mess and problems persist with the Student Loans Company, but record numbers are applying for university places, may we have a general debate on higher education in the near future?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case. He will have seen the thoughtful speech that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science made today. It would be good if we could find time for a debate on those issues. Of course, we will need to hold a debate in any case when we have the report from Lord Browne, who is considering future funding for higher education.

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

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Liberals applying for Short money. Every parliamentarian knows—including hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Leader of the House; we all believe the same thing—that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all men. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that no money is available for them. May I press him to say that no money will be available for them? In due course, if there is to be a change, will the Conservative Government also apply for that money?

[Sir George Young]

Short money is available only to Opposition parties; we have no plans to change that.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that we will get the Back-Bench business committee, but I am concerned that the proposals of the Wright Committee, on which I sat, will not be implemented in full and we will not get the full 35 days. Will he reassure me that, if the business committee recommends that the remaining eight days in Westminster Hall should be transferred to this Chamber, the Government will accede to that request?

[Sir George Young]

I take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend on his election to the Chair of the Treasury Committee. There is a resolution on the Order Paper, asking for a review of the scheme at the end of the Session. I am happy to have that debate. It is important to have it with the business committee because the more days we have in the Chamber, the greater the pressure on Report stages or on the House to sit for longer into August. We need a sensible debate between the business committee and the House about how exactly we re-engineer the House’s time to get the best possible outcome. I do not rule out having more than the initial 27 days, moving up to 35, but I want the House to be aware that there are real problems with putting a quart into a pint pot.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Some £5 billion has been wiped off BP’s share price this morning as a result of the US Administration’s seeking to restrict dividend payments. May we have an emergency statement from the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister about the crisis that engulfs BP? With the company paying £1 in every £6, a serious crisis faces millions of pensioners in the UK. We need to say to our US allies that, yes, a British company made the mistake, but if it had been subject to a regulatory regime in the UK, it would not have been able to do that, and that the world’s insatiable appetite for oil is responsible, not British pensioners.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman makes a forceful point. My understanding is that there are more American than UK shareholders in BP. Although the company is called British Petroleum, the dividend policy has as much impact in the United States as it does here. What happened in the gulf of Mexico is a human and environmental tragedy. The Government will do everything possible, in consultation with BP and the American Government, to help in whatever way we can. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s question will have been heard by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—all those who may be having a dialogue with the American Administration.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Right hon. Members and hon. Members have entered into contracts of employment with their staff. We are legally obliged to ensure that their terms are obeyed, but they were imposed on Members by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is unjust, unfair and potentially a legal minefield?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that, I know, is of concern to all hon. Members. Earlier this week, the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I held a meeting with the acting chief executive of IPSA. It was a constructive discussion and we outlined several possible solutions to the problems that confront hon. Members. There is a debate in Westminster Hall for an hour and a half next Wednesday, when my hon. Friend may want to raise the matter again.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to a debate on the consequences of the moratorium on and eventual cuts in social housing, which were discussed earlier, on urban regeneration, and the practice that that encourages in registered social landlords to engage in property speculation by sitting on land that they are not developing, thus leaving it empty?

Will the Leader of the House also ensure that his ministerial colleagues agree, as a matter of urgency, to a meeting with me and the Save our Stow campaign to ascertain what can be done to prevent the iconic Walthamstow dog track from being left derelict, given the persistent commercial interest in restoring it and the 500 local jobs that represents?

[Sir George Young]

I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing the request for a meeting. The hon. Lady may have just attended Communities and Local Government questions, when social housing was raised.

Perhaps a half-hour Adjournment debate on the future of the Walthamstow greyhound track is a suitable opportunity to share with Ministers the hon. Lady’s concern about its future.

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

May we have a reaffirmation by Health Ministers of the statement made in opposition that fluoridation would not be imposed on Southampton and Totton without the approval of the majority of the people concerned, given that South Central strategic health authority has put aside £400,000 to fight a court case, despite opposition to fluoridation from 72% of the community?

[Sir George Young]

The coalition Government have no plans at this stage to change the legislation under which the health authority is proceeding with its plans to add fluoride to the water in Southampton and the surrounding district. My constituency verges on that district, and I am aware of the strong local feelings and the unhappiness among some people about the consultation exercise that was undertaken before the decision was made to go ahead. However, I would mislead my hon. Friend if I said that we were planning to do anything in the short term to change the legislative framework in which the decisions are made.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate to clear up the mess that is Government policy on further powers for the Welsh Assembly? Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to tell us whether he was in favour. The Deputy Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) that he was in favour, but that was a slip of the tongue, and it turns out that, he, too, did not know. In the main, Liberal Democrat Members are in favour and Tory Members are not. Is all that any surprise when we have the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who does not even know who the First Minister in Wales is, as Secretary of State for Wales?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The referendum cannot be held in October because the outgoing Administration made no preparations for it, so it will be held next year. How people vote in that referendum is a matter for the people of Wales.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Many of my constituents were outraged when my predecessor, who was elected as a Conservative, defected to the Labour party and did not stand down to cause a by-election. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on whether hon. Members should be required to cause a by-election if they defect to a different party from the one on whose manifesto they were elected?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend says that many of us were outraged. I think that many people in the Labour party were rather surprised when that transition happened. He proposes a major constitutional reform of the role of Members of Parliament and their independence, and I do not think we should embark on that without thoroughly considering the implications. At the moment, we have no plans to do that.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that, in this week of world oceans day, it has been strange not to have a debate on the state of the world’s oceans, particularly given the current state of the gulf of Mexico? Will he make time for such a debate so that we can consider the marine recovery strategy that international legislators agreed at the global forum in the House of Commons earlier this week?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in the matter, makes a forceful case for a debate. Without giving any commitments, I agree that it is the sort of issue we ought to look at, and against a background of other demands I shall see what I can do.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on overseas territories? Perhaps then we could discuss the ongoing financial crisis on Ascension island, whose only school is facing closure. The cause is an internal dispute between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, and although it is very much a legacy of the last Government, will the Leader of the House join me in pressing Ministers to make an early resolution of the problem?

[Sir George Young]

It sounds to me as though the matter might be a suitable candidate for a debate in Westminster Hall, where my hon. Friend will be able to raise his concerns at greater length.

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

In response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on affording anonymity to those accused of rape, the Prime Minister said that proposals would be brought forward, enabling debate. That led me to think that the Prime Minister believes that the debate should take place in Government time, in the House. Given the grave anxiety that the proposals are causing not only in the House, but in the wider community, the sooner that debate can take place, the better. Will the Leader of the House commit to holding such a debate, and very soon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I heard what the Prime Minister said:

“we are promising…to bring proposals forward so that they can be debated.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 329.]

When we introduce the proposed legislation, that will be the opportunity for debate that my right hon. Friend referred to. However, I recognise the serious concern of Members on both sides of the House and it may be possible before we set up the Back-Bench business committee to find time for a further debate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I supplement the question put last week by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)? I would like a debate in the House to reconsider the question whether a Member who was elected to the House should be able to use its facilities, and possibly take allowances from the public purse, without him or her taking the Oath of Allegiance.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think a statement, not a debate on the matter is sought by the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir George Young]

Indeed. This reply may not make my hon. Friend’s pulse race. Nevertheless, issues about allowances are no longer a matter for the House. Issues about allowances, including to Members who may not have taken their seats, are now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Given that the Department for Communities and Local Government has just announced the end of ring-fencing for stroke strategy money, can the Leader of the House arrange for any Department of Health advice on the increase in disability and the number of hospital admissions that that is likely to cause to be placed in the Library? Will he allow time for a debate on the stroke strategy in Government time, given that stroke is a major cause of death and disability?

[Sir George Young]

I am in favour of giving local government the maximum freedom to use its resources intelligently, without constraining its decisions by directions from central Government. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and her colleagues who share her views will be able forcefully to make the case to the local authority in her area about the importance of providing resources for those who suffer from stroke.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The new chairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council has called for hefty cuts in sentences to people who plead guilty to the police, which does not bode well for his term in office. May we have a debate about the Government’s approach to sentencing? Given that people already get a considerable discount for pleading guilty and prisoners are automatically released halfway through their sentence, many of my constituents would like the Government to move towards ensuring that prisoners are serving their sentence in full, rather than softer sentences or letting people out of prison even earlier.

[Sir George Young]

That is a typically robust proposition from my hon. Friend. On 15 June there are oral questions to Justice Ministers, which may be an opportunity for him to raise the matter again.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the importance of diversity in news broadcasting in the UK? There is real concern in Wales, Scotland and the regions of England about the Government’s decision not to proceed with pilots for regional news programmes. What is the Government’s position and how will they ensure the diversity in news broadcasting that is so important?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue and I think it best that he comes along on 21 June and puts the question to Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The September G8 in Canada will pay particular attention to how the international community takes forward the millennium development goals. Between now and the rise of the House for the summer recess, will my right hon. Friend try to make time for a general debate on international development so that both sides of the House can reinforce the need for the international community to take forward the MDGs, as set out in early-day motion 179?

[That this House recognises the important contribution and commitment the UK has made to the progress of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); welcomes the Government’s commitment to spend 0.7 per cent. of gross national income on overseas aid and to enshrine this commitment in law; further recognises that development benefits often remain out of reach of those who are poorest, most marginalised and affected by conflict; acknowledges that many of the MDGs are off track, especially those relating to maternal, infant and child health; further acknowledges the importance of the G8, G20 and MDG Review in mobilising the international community to achieve the MDGs; and trusts that the Government will show strong international leadership in encouraging others in the international community to work towards an MDGs’ rescue plan with clear political and financial commitments, and with every G8 country providing solid national commitments and timetables.]

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case. I will see whether between now and the summer recess we can arrange a debate along the lines he has proposed.

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

I thank the Leader of the House and his deputy for bringing forward with great expedition the proposals for a Back-Bench business committee. Sadly, that stands in contrast to the delay we experienced over the last year or so. Before we have too much of a love-in, however, I must tell the Leader of the House that there are a number of omissions in the decision of the whole House last year about how the committee should be constituted. To maintain consensus next Tuesday, and to keep all Back Benchers behind his proposals, will he meet me and a number of interested colleagues from all parties to discuss serious amendments, which we can table tomorrow?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on his election to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.

The debate on Tuesday is House business, and it will be for the House to decide whether it wants to proceed with the motions I have tabled or agree to amendments. Amendments to some of the motions have already been tabled. I should be more than happy to see the hon. Gentleman after business questions if he is available, to explain why we have constructed the motions as we have, why this is not the last word on implementing Wright, and why I believe that on Tuesday we should take an important step forward and build on it.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Last week, the Leader of the House told us that the Mayor of London had applied to the High Court for an injunction in respect of the demonstration in Parliament square. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the situation?

[Sir George Young]

The Mayor did indeed apply for an injunction. The case has been adjourned. My understanding is that more people appeared wishing to make their case than was originally anticipated, so it is taking longer for the High Court to hear many of the people now on Parliament square before it reaches a decision, but I shall try to keep the House informed.

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

Members on both sides of the House who attended the annual meeting held by the all-party group on learning disability and Mencap will know that research was published showing that it costs £7,000 per place to support people with learning disabilities to go into employment. This morning, it was announced that there would be a £30 million cut in the supporting people element of the local government area-based grant. That will obviously fall on some of the most vulnerable people with learning disabilities, including those in my area, and will undermine their efforts to find employment. If we contrast that with the £17,000 cost per place for day care, we see that it makes no sense in economic terms, so may we have a debate on fairness and supporting people, and how to make the big society more inclusive?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. He will know the background to the decision to reduce the resources available. Before the last election, the outgoing Chancellor said that the cuts that would be necessary would be deeper than those imposed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, but I am afraid we have heard no details at all from Opposition Members as to how those economies might be made. Turning to the point the hon. Gentleman made, he says that the cuts will inevitably fall on the most vulnerable. I hope that the local authority will protect the most vulnerable from the impact of that decision and not seek economies from the client group he has just referred to.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that my constituents and those of Members throughout the House have welcomed the proposal to abolish the regional spatial strategies set up by the previous Government. May we have a statement and a debate about when regional spatial strategies will be abolished in legislation?

[Sir George Young]

If my hon. Friend had asked that question an hour earlier, he would have received a definitive response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Later in the Session, there will be a planning Bill, which may be a forum for changing the planning regime. There has been a statement about regional spatial strategies. Speaking from memory, I think the guidance is being altered, but I shall arrange for a definitive reply to be forwarded to my hon. Friend.

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

It is my desire to help the Leader of the House to save money wherever possible. To that end, has he seen my suggestion that we hold the September sittings in Birmingham, rather than in the building site that the House will be in September? May we have an early debate on the obvious benefits and cost-effectiveness of moving Parliament to Birmingham?

[Sir George Young]

Whether it would save money to sit in Birmingham, rather than in London, given some of the costs involved for some Members, is a moot point. So I am afraid that the motion on September sittings, which I have tabled, presumes that the House will continue to sit here. But may I commend the hon. Gentleman? He is the first Opposition Member who has made a proposal to save money.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware of the significant concerns among hon. Members about the business practices of banks, in which, of course, we now hold a substantial stake. The Royal Bank of Scotland in Partington—one of the most deprived areas of my constituency—has just announced closure plans. Will he ensure that there is time to debate the future of the banking sector and to discuss economic and social responsibilities, and emphasise to his colleagues in the Treasury team that the House will want that to be covered?

[Sir George Young]

I was sorry to hear about the proposed closure of the bank in the hon. Lady’s constituency. She will have heard me announce that the Budget statement will be made on Tuesday week, after which there are a number of days to debate Budget resolutions. That will provide an opportunity for her to raise this concern with Treasury Ministers.

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

It might surprise the House to know that, among the letters that I receive, there are many asking me what I am doing to uphold the hunting ban in inner-city Hackney. They at least equal the number of letters that I receive about urban foxes. In the past week, nine-month-old twins in my constituency were the very unfortunate victims of a nasty attack by one of those urban foxes. Given that we have some idea of the Government’s plans about how to deal with fox hunting, have they any plan to consider either guidance or, if necessary, legislation on urban foxes?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady raises a serious issue, and the whole House has sympathy for the family of the twins who were mauled by a fox a few days ago. I will raise with the Home Secretary the issue of whether further guidance or, indeed, a change in the legislation is necessary, but I hope that there may be ways to deal with those risks other than primary legislation.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Surely the Leader of the House is washing his hands, Pilate-like, of the responsibilities that the House ought to have when it comes to the payment of Members’ allowances to a party and to Members who deliberately abstain and fail to do the work that they ought to do on behalf of their constituents. Surely, there should be not only a debate in the House but a statement by the Government and, indeed, an admonishment of those Members who fail to turn up to the House and to do the job as elected Members, but who are paid full allowances for coming here and for failing to do that job.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern, but it was a unanimous decision of the last Parliament that decisions on the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament should be taken no longer by the House, but by an independent organisation. That is where the responsibility rests. As I said a moment ago, there is a debate on Government policy on IPSA on Wednesday, and that may provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to raise the issue again.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware that, in Ealing, the Post Office is engaging in yet another consultation on a major proposal to close down a post office in one place and move it to another. Even while the consultation is going on, it appears that some of the preparatory building work is taking place at the proposed site. I wonder whether we can have a further look at how the Post Office conducts some of these so-called consultations.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Ealing is an area with which I am not unfamiliar. I am looking forward to sharing with her the party in my former constituency later today to celebrate her election to the House. I will raise with Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers the issue that she raises about whether the Post Office has gone through the appropriate procedures in apparently pre-empting a decision on closing one office and moving it to another location.

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

Returning to the economy, in view of today’s forecast that unemployment will rise substantially and stay there for the duration of the Conservative-dominated Government, will we have regular statements by the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary on the misery that will be undoubtedly inflicted on so many of our constituents?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman can raise that matter in the Budget debate. We inherited the largest fiscal deficit in the EU. Everyone agrees that we must take some measures to get it under control. The sooner that we get it under control, the better for securing a long-term, sustainable recovery and the better the prospect for interest rates. Unless we take those decisions to rebalance the economy and promote growth in the private sector, the situation will not improve.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Although I welcome the Government’s proposals to introduce individual voter registration, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could grant us an early debate on restricting postal and proxy votes, which have brought the electoral system in this country under so much criticism in the past.

[Sir George Young]

The Electoral Commission is, I believe, doing a review of the recent election that will be published. It would be sensible to await the outcome of that review before we consider any decision on restricting postal or proxy votes. I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend expresses, but we need a debate set against the background of the work that is now under way.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am sure that, as a very distinguished former Housing Minister, the Leader of the House will be disappointed in the appalling complacency of some of the answers and, frankly, the frightening delay in getting to the Dispatch Box of some Housing Ministers during Communities and Local Government questions today. May we have a debate in Government time on housing and planning policies, so that we can ensure that they are based on the needs and aspirations of those who live on council estates, not those who live on country estates?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman was also a good Housing Minister. Housing completions in the year that has just ended were the fewest since 1946. The last Labour Government built 26,000 fewer houses per year than the previous Conservative Government. That is not a record to be proud of, and as the hon. Gentleman will have heard from the Housing Minister who was at the Dispatch Box, he found that promises had been made to spend money that did not exist. That is why we had to take some tough decisions. None the less, when the Chancellor considered savings to be made in year, £170 million was found to make progress with social rented housing. We hope to do a lot better than the outgoing Administration in meeting housing need.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

There is great concern in Cleethorpes, particularly among those who are employed in the tourism trade, about the spread of the salt marsh on Cleethorpes pleasure beach, and there is anger at the attitude of the Government agency, Natural England—an unaccountable and unelected body—in respect of overruling the local authority, which is, of course, democratically accountable and elected, in its desire to manage the beach. Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the role of agencies, such as Natural England, and their ability to overrule democratically accountable bodies?

[Sir George Young]

My extensive briefing does not cover salt marshes in Cleethorpes, but my hon. Friend raises an important issue about the role of elected local authorities and that of the unelected quangos that sit above them. There may be an opportunity on 24 June, during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, for him to press Ministers in more detail, and I will give them advance notice of his concern.

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

We will all have been horrified by the brutal murder on 28 May of nearly 100 Ahmadiyya worshippers in two separate attacks in Lahore. Britain’s Ahmadiyya Muslims work hard and contribute greatly to this country, and their belief in peace and religious tolerance is an example to us all. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore find time for Parliament to debate how we can help to stop the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan and what we can do to reassure them that they are safe to practise their faith in the UK?

[Sir George Young]

Freedom of religious worship is an important principle, which I hope that this country will always defend. May I suggest that the hon. Lady find time for a debate in Westminster Hall, where this serious issue can be debated at more length and an appropriate Foreign Office Minister can respond?

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that a Minister can give us the Government’s views on the review set up by the previous Administration and hon. Members can set out in the Chamber what they believe are the benefits and disadvantages of the existing legislation?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question and I am aware of a serious case in his constituency. I will, of course, contact the Home Secretary to ask where the review to which the hon. Gentleman refers has got to and to ensure that its findings are available to the House.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Leader of the House’s indication that he has some sympathy with the idea of an early debate in Government time about their proposal to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases? When he decides how early a debate we may have, will he take account of the fact that the policy was in neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat manifestos, but appeared in a mere nine words in the coalition agreement?

[Sir George Young]

That is an ingenious approach on the case for a debate. I just say to the hon. Lady that a Labour Government adopted such a policy in 1976 when they introduced anonymity for rape defendants, so this is not wholly without precedent. However, regardless of whether the proposal was in the manifestos, this serious issue should be debated on its merits.

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

May we have a debate on industrial relations in the aviation industry? Most reasonable and rational people recognise that the British Airways cabin crew dispute has run its course and that serious discussions should be taking place. Earlier this week, several hon. Members met a cabin crew member who told us about the bullying, harassment and vindictiveness that is going on in British Airways, and an early debate would allow us to expose the corporate thuggery that is taking place in the company.

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the dispute can be brought to a conclusion. It is a matter for British Airways, the trade unions and the staff to resolve, perhaps with the assistance of ACAS, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Swansea, where I am meeting the chief of police tomorrow, there is growing concern about the relationship between increased job cuts and crime, and between education cuts and drug abuse. Given the plans to cut the police grant by £125 million, when will the Leader of the House find time to debate those issues, especially given that the previous Government reduced crime by a third, whereas the former Conservative Government doubled it?

May I thank those people who supported my Select Committee candidacy, even though I was unsuccessful?

[Sir George Young]

There will be more resources available to police authorities this year than last year, despite the reductions that have been referred to. As I said earlier, the written ministerial statement indicates that the grant reduction requires the approval of the House, so that might give the opportunity to debate it.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on her election as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

May we have a debate soon, in Government time, about Network Rail’s contracts for rail track renewal? The Leader of the House will be aware that the rail track renewal firm Jarvis went into administration in April with the loss of 1,100 jobs, including 350 in my constituency. Network Rail has signed a contract with Babcock that will allow 25 of those 350 who were made redundant to be re-employed, but that is not good enough. Rail track needs to be renewed for reasons of public safety, and those skilled workers need jobs, especially if the Government are to fulfil their obligation to build new railways.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the loss of jobs in his constituency. A week today—on 17 June—we will have Transport questions, and I believe that he still has time to table a relevant question on the matter.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Did the Leader of the House knock any sense into IPSA when he met its representatives? Did they give an apology for the breach of security by sending these e-mails to the wrong Members of Parliament, because there was none in the letter that I received? Next time he sees them, will he tell them that a strange paradox is occurring in the House of Commons, as the Back Benchers are taking power to themselves—he referred to that today, right?—yet an oligarchy called IPSA is moving in the opposite direction? Tell it to get in tune!

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking either a statement—preferably now—or indeed a debate.

[Sir George Young]

I raised the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which should not have happened, with the interim chief executive of IPSA, who is apologetic about it. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a letter from the interim chief executive to confirm what he said to the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and myself.

We are doing what the hon. Gentleman’s Government failed to do by taking power away from the Executive and giving it to the House of Commons and the Back-Bench business committee. On the question of setting up IPSA, if he looks at the voting record, he will see that he either supported it or abstained—he did not object to it.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Yes, the Labour Government made a terrible mistake more than 35 years ago with what they tried to do on anonymity for rape defendants. I do not think that this is about party political point scoring because more than 50 hon. Members, including 18 Government Members, attended a late-night Adjournment debate on the matter, which is pretty rare. It is becoming clearer day by day that there is confusion about the Government’s policy, where the priority came from and the basis for their approach, so may I entreat the Leader of the House to think about providing Government time to discuss something that is a Government plan?

[Sir George Young]

The position of the Government is that we have put forward a proposal in the coalition agreement. That proposal will require the assent of both Houses before it comes into effect. We have made it clear that we would like a debate before we proceed with the proposal. I take seriously the right hon. Lady’s point, which has also been made by her colleagues, that we ought to find time as soon as possible to debate the matter at greater length.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to that, there is a lot of confusion about the Government’s position. The agreement says not, as the Leader of the House suggested earlier, that the Government will give “serious consideration” to introducing the proposal, but:

“We will extend anonymity in rape cases”.

Would he care to propose an amendment to the coalition document to reflect what he said, and perhaps to publish a White Paper or Green Paper on the proposal? Given what the Prime Minister said recently, is he suggesting that there will be consideration of a free vote on the issue when the Government introduce legislation? The coalition’s programme for government states that it “will extend anonymity”, so he cannot get away with saying that he is just running this idea up the flagpole—that is fag packet politics.

[Sir George Young]

That, if I may say so, is a distortion of what I said. I said that the coalition Government have made a proposal, which is in the coalition agreement. That proposal cannot reach the statute book unless it goes through both Houses. Before it can do that, it is clear that there needs to be a serious debate about the pros and cons. I have taken on board requests for a debate before we make progress, and I will try to respond to them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I listened with interest to the Leader of the House when he responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) about Short money and the proposals made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), the new deputy leader of the Liberal party. However, may we have a debate about the seating arrangements in the Chamber, as some of us remain concerned that although the Liberal party is a signatory to the coalition document, its Members want the right to set out statements against certain policies, for example on nuclear power, and to make a principled abstention? As a precursor to that debate, may I suggest that we build a fence down the middle of the Chamber so that when the Liberals are sitting on it, we can at least see that they are doing so?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted with the new seating arrangements and so are my hon. Friends. May I amplify what I said earlier about Short money? It is for the Clerk of the House, as accounting officer, to ensure that Short money payments are made in accordance with resolutions of the House. As for the voting record, the hon. Gentleman will find that Members of the last Parliament who sat on the Government side of the House very occasionally voted against the Government.

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

Patients and NHS staff would have been as concerned as I was to learn yesterday that decisions on capital projects in the NHS that had already been announced, such as the vital rebuild of the Royal Liverpool hospital, will not be forthcoming until the autumn. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or one of his Ministers comes to the House to make an urgent statement about the delay?

[Sir George Young]

That is probably better raised with the Secretary of State for Health, but I say to the hon. Lady that we were the only party at the last election to pledge an increase in real terms in spending on the NHS, so whatever the prospects are for her hospital, they are better than they would have been.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House said last week and again today that he has had meetings with IPSA, and I thank him for the overtures to IPSA that he has made on behalf of the House. Is there any point where he can make a statement to the House on the results of those discussions, before the byzantine bureaucracy of IPSA stops and prevents Members of this House from serving their constituents?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern and repeat that, as Leader of the House, I would be concerned if the allowance regime stood in the way of Members discharging their responsibilities as constituency MPs. In addition to the meeting with the interim chief executive, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I held a meeting with the chairman of the 1922 committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the leader of the parliamentary Liberal group. Discussions are ongoing about how we improve the dialogue with IPSA. I add as a footnote that, if the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) looks at the list of ministerial responsibilities, he will see that Government responsibility for policy towards IPSA rests with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the debate in Westminster Hall will be answered by the Parliamentary Secretary from the relevant Department.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 7 June will include:

Monday 7 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Constitution and home affairs will be debated.

Tuesday 8 June—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Economic affairs and work and pensions will be debated.

Wednesday 9 June— Second Reading on the Identity Documents Bill.

Thursday 10 June—General debate on poverty.

The provisional business for the week commencing 14 June will include:

Monday 14 June—General debate on emerging economies, followed by general debate on the middle east.

Tuesday 15 June—Proceedings on House business.

Wednesday 16 June—Opposition day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion: subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 June—General debate: subject to be announced.

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

Thursday 10 June—A debate entitled “Volcanic ash—impact on passengers and the aviation industry”.

Thursday 17 June— A debate entitled “Alternatives to child detention”

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and I am also grateful for the statement on Gaza yesterday and for the planned statement today on the terrible tragedy in Cumbria. The thoughts of the House are with the families, friends and relatives of those killed or injured, and with the communities so devastatingly affected by what happened.

Last week, the Leader of the House agreed with me that it was “deplorable” that the Queen’s Speech had been leaked. He said that it was

“a discourtesy to the House and to Her Majesty”

and that

“steps will be taken to minimise the risk of such leaks occurring again.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 285.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what steps have actually been taken; what will be done differently; and what his current assessment is of the likelihood of a repeat of the leaking of information that we saw two weeks ago?

The right hon. Gentleman also said last week that the Government had no intention of reintroducing Regional Select Committees, despite the concern expressed by Opposition Members that their abolition would remove one of the ways for the House to scrutinise the effects of the £6 billion cuts that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government had announced. However, he did say he would get back to us on what was happening to the Regional Grand Committees. Can he tell us the latest information on those Committees?

I ask that question particularly because on Friday, the Prime Minister went to Yorkshire to tell us how he wanted to develop regional economies. He set out a series of priorities, which sounded remarkably like the priorities we had identified when in government, but without the investment, because of the £336 million cut from the Business Department revealed at Business, Innovation and Skills questions today, and without the strategy to make it happen, because of confusion over the future of the regional development agencies. We heard further comments this morning from the Business Secretary, but I have to say that they shed very little light on the issue. I think he said that the RDAs would be changed fundamentally, but might actually look the same at the end of the process. That reminded us of last week’s comment from the Leader of the House that the child trust fund would not be abolished, but would be phased out—we were a bit puzzled as to the difference.

The Leader of the House will have noted the anxiety arising from this morning’s contributions and yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions about the uncertainty the Government are creating for businesses in our regions. Surely Regional Grand Committees could help to throw some light on what on earth is going on in terms of regional policy. Should not the Government also rethink their policy on Regional Select Committees?

To add to the general air of confusion, the Prime Minister also announced in his speech that he would be “assigning” Ministers and “senior MPs” to some of our biggest cities, so what does this mean for smaller cities and towns, and what does it mean for rural areas, villages and seaside towns? In Yorkshire, for example, because of the effect of agriculture and tourism on their economies, rural areas have benefited from having a regional strategy and a regional body to help development, so why should they not get a Minister? Under the Labour Government, regional Ministers were able to speak for the whole region, but that just cannot happen under the current proposals. Will the city Ministers or senior MPs report to the House? Is their work to be scrutinised by members of some new City committees that the Government might have in mind? It really does look like the Government are making it up as they go along with a kind of botched DIY regional strategy, but what is really happening, as we saw this morning, is that key commitments made by the last Government are being put at risk.

I also ask the Leader of the House if we can have an early statement to clarify the position on Building Schools for the Future. After yesterday’s exchanges at Prime Minister’s Questions and after the education debate, I really think we are none the wiser about the future of the programme. The Prime Minister said he was absolutely clear about it, but I have to say that I would hate to hear him if he were being abstruse. Could the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary to give the House a straight answer to a straight question? Is the Building Schools for the Future budget protected or not?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she said at the beginning. The whole House shares the grief of the families and friends of those who lost their lives in Cumbria. However, I note what the local Member of Parliament said about the resilience and cohesion of the area. I am sure that that is absolutely true.

I am happy to say that there has been no further leak since I made my announcement last week. As I said then, the Cabinet Secretary is taking steps to ensure that there is no repetition of the discourtesy that occurred over the Queen’s Speech.

I make no apologies for not re-establishing the Regional Select Committees. They were forced through on the casting vote of the former Leader of the House, and were narrowly approved in the last Parliament after a huge rebellion on the Labour Benches. They turned out to be a total waste of money, and, as I have said, I make no apologies for not reintroducing them. We will make an announcement in due course about the future of Regional Grand Committees.

The right hon. Lady asked about the schools budget. The Chief Secretary made clear that the in-year reductions to which he referred in his statement last week would not affect schools. As for child trust funds, I understand that they will not end immediately, but will be phased out over a period. I will ensure that the right hon. Lady is given the right answer on that. She also asked whether the Secretary of State for education would give a straight answer. I am sure that he will on the next occasion when he appears at the Dispatch Box to answer questions.

We have just had a lively exchange in Business, Innovation and Skills questions, in which many of the issues raised by the right hon. Lady were dealt with more than adequately by my ministerial colleagues.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any possibility of a debate—or an explanation—on Severn bridge tolls, which have continued to rise for people travelling into Wales, but were frozen in marginal seats by the last Government? Will he ask someone to explain to us why the last Government appeared to discriminate against the people of Wales in that fashion?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend has asked a robust question. I am sure that oral questions will give him an opportunity to elicit an answer and to find out exactly why certain seats were spared the increases in the last Parliament, and also to set out this Government’s philosophy on the important issues surrounding access to Wales.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job following the inception of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? I should like a debate not on the incoherent and ill-thought-out rules that have been introduced, but on such matters as the operation of the online system, which often crashes, is incoherent and does not work, and the fact that Members of Parliament cannot talk directly to IPSA’s staff. That has led to new Members’ being in debt to the tune of several thousand pounds, and being unable to set up offices at an early stage in order to provide the service to their constituents that they were elected to provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I take that issue very seriously. As I said last week, I think that the House made the right strategic decision in the last Parliament when it decided to contract out responsibility for the fixing and paying of our allowances. We know of the difficulties that we got into during the last Parliament in that regard. Having said that, however, I should add that the whole purpose of the allowances regime is to enable Members of Parliament to do their job: to represent their constituents, and to hold the Government to account. I am seriously concerned by the growing number of stories from Members on both sides of the House about the difficulties that they are experiencing in accessing the system.

Immediately after business questions I shall meet representatives of all the political parties, and shortly thereafter I shall have a second meeting with the chief executive and the chairman of IPSA, to whom I shall convey the strong feelings which I know are widely shared. I shall also do all that I can to ensure that the technical problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are addressed as quickly as possible.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I am being besieged by requests to join all-party parliamentary groups. Surely there are now too many of them to be viable. Can the Leader of the House do anything to encourage a merger or coalition between APPGs?

[Sir George Young]

The solution rests in the hands of hon. Members. An all-party parliamentary group can only get going if enough Members agree to sponsor it; otherwise, it will not get off the ground. However, I agree that there are a large number of APPGs, many of which overlap.

Let me, at the beginning of a new Parliament, urge all colleagues to consider before automatically—to do a favour to a friend—signing up to an APPG whose meetings they have no intention of attending. Although APPGs have an important role to play, we need to be more selective about which ones we have, and to decide our priorities in a better way.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the review of paediatric cardiac surgery that is currently under way, and which is due to report in September? I recently visited Glenfield hospital in my constituency, and the patients and staff at its outstanding paediatric cardiac unit are very concerned about the implications of the review for the future of the unit. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish those concerns to be fully debated in the House.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady makes a forceful case, and I can only suggest that she puts in for an Adjournment debate so that her anxieties can be shared and she can get a response from the Minister responsible.

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

May we have a full day’s debate prior to the strategic defence review on the adequacy of our strategy for Afghanistan? That would enable us to examine whether a policy of short-term surging, medium-term withdrawal and no apparent long-term plan for security whatever is the best way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

As my hon. Friend will know, we had a debate last week in which the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary both spoke and issues relating to Afghanistan were raised. None the less, I agree that this country is at war and it is important that the House has an opportunity to debate the important issues my hon. Friend raises and to put them in the context of a strategic defence review. I would therefore certainly hope that before too long we have a debate along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

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

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for arranging a debate on the middle east, may I ask him whether he has seen early-day motion 120, standing in my name?

[That this House advocates and supports a warm and close relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of India; notes the two countries' historical ties; further notes that India is the world's largest democracy; recognises that such a relationship can help resolve the vexing issue of Jammu and Kashmir; believes that the Indian High Commission in London has a vital role to play in fostering this friendship; regrets that the conduct of the Indian High Commissioner, Nalin Surie, is causing serious damage to that friendship; condemns the failure of the Indian High Commissioner to respond to letters from the right hon. Member from Manchester, Gorton stretching back to January 2010, in which the right hon. Member has requested that the visa application of one of his constituents initially made many months ago and for which the constituent has paid £113.86 has still not been granted; is concerned that the efforts of a right hon. Member of this House to help have been rudely ignored; further believes that Nalin Surie is not fit to hold such an important and influential post; and calls for his removal to India by the Indian government and his replacement by a diplomat who will commit himself or herself to fostering good relations between the two countries.]

The early-day motion draws attention to the failure of the Indian high commission to grant a constituent of mine—a British national—a visa six months after he applied, while keeping more than £100 of his money. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot arrange for a debate on the matter, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to intervene?

[Sir George Young]

I am very sorry to hear of what has happened and of the discourtesy that was extended. I will, of course, pass the right hon. Gentleman’s representations on to the Foreign Secretary and see if he can take the matter up with the Indian high commission.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will it be possible to have a debate next week on my right hon. Friend’s proposal to set up the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, rather than having it go through on the nod later this evening? If we had a debate on it, we would be able to consider early-day motion 79.

[That this House calls on the Government to ensure that any Bill to establish a fixed-term Parliament and to change arrangements for Dissolution is published first in draft and then subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.]

Moreover, we would be able to consider whether the Committee should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. My right hon. Friend and I both served on a Joint Committee on constitutional reform in the last Parliament, and I suggest to him that a Joint Committee would be more appropriate than a single Committee of this House alone.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have put down a motion on today’s Order Paper to set up the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee because we thought it would be helpful to the House for that Select Committee to be elected at the same time as all the other Select Committees and to get it up and running quickly. My hon. Friend will know better than anyone else in this House that if he is here at six o’clock this evening and makes a noise, the matter will be adjourned and we will then have to find time for a debate. He is perfectly entitled to do that. The consequence would be that we would lose a bit of time in establishing this new Select Committee, but it would not be the end of the world if that happened—and my hon. Friend could, indeed, raise in that subsequent debate the broader questions about how this proposed new Select Committee would interface with, for example, the Public Administration and the Justice Select Committees.

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

Last year, in Liverpool, Wavertree we saw the savage death of John Paul Massey, who was savagely attacked by a pit bull. A review of the dangerous dogs legislation was initiated in March, under the last Government. Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to update the House on the progress being made with this review?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, and I understand the concern felt in her constituency. On Monday, we have the Queen’s Speech debate on home affairs, and I will make sure that the Minister replying to that debate takes her point on board and updates the House on the review to which she refers.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of firefighters up and down the land. May we have a debate on funding for fire authorities because under the previous comprehensive spending review, shire authorities, such as your own, Mr Speaker, received on average an allocation of just 2%, whereas many urban authorities received up to 18%. Although we all understand the financial constraints that we are under at the moment, can the funding under the next review at least be fair across the land?

[Sir George Young]

There are oral questions to the relevant Department a week today, so I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to share his concern with Ministers and get a robust response.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

When will the Leader of the House timetable a debate on the provision of respite care homes and, in particular, on their closure when there is an urgent need for them and no alternative provision? I am thinking, in particular, of the possible closure of Earlsmoor respite care home in my constituency. Does he agree that such homes should not be closed when no alternative provision has been made, given what is, in many cases, a thankless task carried out by thousands of carers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the job done by those who work in respite care homes. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for him to have an Adjournment debate on the specific subject that he raises and, thus, get an answer from the responsible Minister.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

Further to this week’s letter written by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government regarding regional spatial strategy and specifying recommendations for Gypsy and Traveller site numbers per region, could we have a debate on how local authorities can protect themselves from Gypsy and Traveller encampments riding roughshod over planning law in green belt areas? We must ensure that we have a fair system of proper provision of legal campsites for Gypsies and Travellers.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the anxiety that the hon. Lady expresses and I know that at the previous general election my party put forward proposals to give local authorities greater powers to deal with these unauthorised encampments. She may have an opportunity a week today at Communities and Local Government questions to develop her concerns with the appropriate Ministers—perhaps she will be able to do so during topical questions.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on domestic energy prices and, in particular, on the fact that many of my constituents are still being ripped off? That applies particularly to those who live in rural areas that do not have a connection to the gas mains. Those people’s unit prices are increasing every quarter and people living on some small estates are paying different prices. Can we ensure that the market helps these people, because at the moment it is not working?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with feeling on behalf of those who live in rural constituencies and are exposed to those higher prices. I shall share his concern with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and see that he receives a reply.

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

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that community hospitals could “breathe easily”, which is great news for those of us who have such hospitals in our constituencies, as we know how important they are. Could we have an early debate on community hospitals so that I and others can raise issues of importance to us? For example, people in Clitheroe were promised a new hospital to replace the old community hospital, but the project was frozen last year—the people of Clitheroe should not have to wait.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case. He will know that we exempted health expenditure from the difficult decisions that an incoming Government will have to take. He may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall on community hospitals, and I am sure that if he does so, the debate will be well attended by Members from both sides of the House.

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

Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on support for the UK film industry? Labour Members raised the issue in Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier. My personal interest arises because of the centre of creative excellence south of Seaham, part of the funding for which comes from One NorthEast, the regional development agency, and from Northern Film and Media. We understand that One NorthEast faces a cut of 40% in its budget this year. This is a matter of concern, because of the potential for jobs and training opportunities. Those on both sides of the House might find it instructive if we were to have a debate on this issue.

[Sir George Young]

The UK film industry is an important export earner for this country, and we are proud of it. Culture, Media and Sport questions will take place on 21 June, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate on the film industry.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a full debate on the implications of the Government’s excellent proposals to get rid of the previous Government’s planning targets? Two beautiful pieces of countryside in my constituency, which are at Micklethwaite and in Menston, face unnecessary and unwanted proposed developments. Our holding a full debate may allow residents in those areas, who are campaigning against the developments, to see a route map towards having these pieces of land taken out of the unitary development plan altogether.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend reminds the House that the letter from the Secretary of State abandoning the regional spatial strategies has been greeted with acclaim by those on this side of the House and, I suspect, secretly by those on the other side of the House too. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to cross-question planning Ministers a week today, and I will see that they are forearmed with an answer to his question about the sites in his constituency.

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

Funding for the Manchester Metrolink extensions is being reviewed by this Government, despite the fact that advanced works and track laying are taking place. Can the Leader of the House use his good offices to urge the Secretary of State for Transport to come to this House to give assurances to Greater Manchester transport planners and my constituents on this important matter?

[Sir George Young]

I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says, because in a previous capacity I authorised the extension of the Metrolink. All the questions from Labour Members are requests for more public money, at a time when they have left us with a deficit of £160 billion. It would be helpful if, at some point, we heard, alongside the suggestions to spend more money, one or two suggestions as to how we might save some of the money and get the public accounts back in balance. To return to his specific question, I should say to him that Transport questions will take place on 17 June, and that will give him the chance to press the case for the Metrolink in his constituency.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I understand that the Government intend to press ahead with using valuable parliamentary time to debate a Government motion on hunting. If that is the case, may I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that that debate is as quick as possible and takes place as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right, because the Queen’s Speech contains a commitment to have a debate on hunting and for the House to resolve whether or not the Hunting Act 2004 should stay. I note his request for such a debate to take place sooner rather than later, but it will have to take its place against bids for debates on other subjects that are equally or perhaps more important.

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

In the previous Parliament and in the run-up to the general election, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made it very clear that one of the first priorities would be to remove allowances from Members of Parliament who are elected to this House but who do not take their seats and do not fulfil the range of duties that people expect of a Member of Parliament, and thus to resolve an iniquitous situation. Given the great public concern about the abuse of expenses and allowances in the previous Parliament, when can we expect a motion to come before the House to remove those allowances from Members of Parliament who do not do their jobs here?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises. I hope that he will understand my saying that I will need to consult colleagues in government and perhaps the authorities in the House before we go down the particular route that he has outlined.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that nobody in the public sector will be allowed to earn 20 times more than what the people at the bottom earn. I calculate that no manager in the NHS will, thus, be able to earn more than £189,321.60. Can the Secretary of State for Health make a statement as to when that limit will be imposed?

[Sir George Young]

I commend my hon. Friend on his mental arithmetic in coming up with that figure. Clearly, this involves issues relating to those who are already getting paid salaries that exceed the differential, so the policy is easier to implement in respect of new recruits as opposed to existing staff. None the less, I shall raise this issue with the appropriate Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and see that my hon. Friend is given an appropriate answer.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

This follows on from our initial discussion about IPSA. If the Leader of the House has any discussions with Sir Ian Kennedy, will he remind him that a lot of people in this House are concerned about the safety of the online system? Is the Leader of the House aware, for instance, that this email that I have here has been sent to me when it should have gone to another Member of Parliament? It has names and everything on it—I am not disclosing the name now, but he is welcome to see it if he wants. He should draw this to the attention of Mr Kennedy and tell him that a system that allows this to happen within the space of a few weeks—according to my information, this has also happened to another Member of Parliament—has to stop. Therefore, when the Leader of the House has these discussions he should consider the question of not merely sticking to the online system. While he is at it, will he ask Mr Kennedy whether his expenses details are online? And what are they?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, I will. I take very seriously any breach of confidentiality, particularly on the sensitive matter of Members’ expenses, against the background of all the problems that we had in the last Parliament. I will therefore take up the whole issue of security at the meeting that I will have shortly with the acting chief executive and the chairman. I will ask whether they will consider, even at this late stage, an alternative regime for those who are not comfortable with claiming online.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to follow up the important issue of business rates and major regeneration schemes? In the Gracious Speech, we saw our first glimpse of the excellent Bill for decentralisation and localism, which promises to give local communities a real share in local growth. In my constituency of Harlow, the regeneration of the town centre would be hugely supported if a greater share of the new business rates could be kept in the local community.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful point. There will be CLG questions a week today, when he will be able to press the Ministers on that, but I agree that it is important that those who pay business rates should have access to the relief that they are entitled to automatically, and that there should be opportunities to recycle the business rates within the local community.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the comments made by colleagues on both sides of the House on the workings of IPSA. I did not come to this Parliament to be an accountant, and yet I find that I spend an inordinate amount of time now trying to sort out all the demands of IPSA. I wonder whether there might be confusion in the Government on this, as the written answer from the Leader of the House published in Hansard today in response to a series of questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) states:

“There is no ministerial responsibility for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 45W.]

On another page, however, a written answer from the Prime Minister states:

“The Deputy Prime Minister will also have policy responsibility for the Electoral Commission, Boundary Commission, and Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 23WS.]

So who is responsible for what, and is the Deputy Prime Minister actually a Minister?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, he is. I understand the concern that the right hon. Lady has raised, and let me explain the thinking behind this. The Bill setting up IPSA was sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and any legislation that dealt with IPSA would have to have a Government Department sponsoring it. To that extent, therefore, it is true to say that responsibility for IPSA and all the other bodies falls under the umbrella of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, it is also the case that at the moment IPSA is an independent body, so questions about how much people get paid and how it operates are not ones that Ministers can answer—hence the reply to the hon. Member for Walsall North. Against that background, however, I hope that she will accept that those two apparently conflicting statements can actually be reconciled.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend make further representations about the demonstration in Parliament square? The current demonstration is completely different from the one in the last Parliament. That focused on one individual, but this morning there were 20 tents in Parliament square. Does he think that this is a satisfactory situation?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that the Mayor of London is going to the High Court today to get an injunction in order to make progress on clearing Parliament square.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House assist me in getting a response from the Department of Health on a matter that I first raised in February, prompted by consultants at Wexham Park hospital in my constituency? They feared that the hospital had fiddled the books to acquire foundation status. I got replies from the former Secretary of State for Health every month, telling me that the Department was still looking at the question. I have been in direct touch with the current Secretary of State’s office but have still heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to reply to me on this important issue?

[Sir George Young]

Yes.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the badger cull, which is a real and present danger to farmers in my constituency? An infected heifer must be put down immediately, whereas an infected badger has to be let go, as putting it down is a criminal offence.

[Sir George Young]

I will share my hon. Friend’s concerns with the Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who has responsibility for this matter. I know that there is concern in rural constituencies about the current regime, which precludes badger culls.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on reducing Humber bridge tolls, or maintaining the current freeze on them, so that they are no longer a tax on local people and businesses in my area?

[Sir George Young]

I would be misleading the hon. Gentleman if I said that I could find time for a debate on that next week. However, may I suggest that he applies for a debate in Westminster Hall or for one on the Adjournment?

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

In the last Parliament, I asked the previous Leader of the House for a debate on the NHS’s use of independent sector treatment centres, following the tragic and unnecessary death of a constituent of mine at the Eccleshill facility in Bradford. May I ask the new Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on this important issue, so that we can reassure people that the use of independent sector treatment centres is both safe and appropriate for the NHS?

[Sir George Young]

I was sorry to hear about the death of the hon. Member’s constituent. I see no reason why he should not get an answer from the Secretary of State for Health giving him an assurance that, where health authorities contract out and use the independent sector, they first of all assure themselves that all the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that patient health is not prejudiced.

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

According to the Bank of England’s annual report, which was published today, the Governor was paid £305,000 last year. However, that pales into insignificance when compared to the salaries of the chief executives of major—and indeed minor—financial organisations. They are regularly paid more than £1 million a year, and sometimes £10 million or even £20 million. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) would like a debate on public sector salaries, but will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on all high salaries? That would allow the House to be aware of the vast disparity that obtains in this country.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think that I am right in saying that Will Hutton has been invited to do a study into pay differentials in this country, and I hope that that will inform the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked.

[Christopher Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on pensions and on encouraging the general public to save for their old age? That is especially important given the report in today’s Financial Times that suggests that the coalition Government are planning to scrap from 2012 the requirement on employers to enrol employees automatically in pension schemes.

[Sir George Young]

I would counsel the hon. Gentleman against believing absolutely everything that he reads in the papers, even the Financial Times. However, there will be opportunities to put questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Gentleman will, of course, be able to share his anxieties with ministerial colleagues during the debate on the Budget statement, when that comes.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the plight of people with haemophilia who were infected with HIV and hepatitis C as a result of their NHS treatment with contaminated blood products. Given the confirmation yesterday that Ministers do not intend to challenge the High Court ruling in the case of March, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come urgently to this House to set out the Government’s approach to supporting that very needy group, bearing in mind that nearly 2,000 haemophiliacs have died so far?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I remember the campaign in the last Parliament, which had support from both sides of the House. Of course I will arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to answer the question that he has raised.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the dear Leader tell us when he might find time for a debate on the future of the aircraft carriers? Before the election, we were promised that we would have an examination of the break clauses on day one of the new Government. However, day one, week one and almost month one have gone and there has been no announcement. Any public expenditure could be found by cutting the grants that we provide to the EU.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for that helpful suggestion—the only suggestion that we have had so far from the Opposition—as to how money might possibly be saved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have announced a strategic defence and security review, which will examine the issues that he has raised, and he will have an opportunity at Defence questions to press Ministers on the specific projects that he has outlined.

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

May I ask the Leader of the House when we are going to have a debate on what the Government call quangos, because there are 700 jobs at stake in Coventry? More importantly, do the Government consider regional development agencies such as Advantage West Midlands to be quangos? Do they also understand that major problems are now building up in the civil service itself—among the lower-paid, not the higher-paid? If the definition of quango includes them, should we not have a major debate on this?

[Sir George Young]

On the specific issue of the west midlands regional development agency, we have just had an hour’s questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which included, I understand, a question on the west midlands RDA. On the issue of quangos generally, quangos cover a wide range of Government Departments, and it may be better to look at the quangos within the context of each individual Department and see how they fit in, rather than have a wide-ranging debate on quangos spanning every Department.

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

I welcome the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box. Thinking back to when he and I, and the Speaker, entered the House, one of the toughest parts of the job was if someone had a young family and represented a constituency some way from the House. They were tough times, and I do not want us to go back to the days when I very rarely saw my wife and children because they lived 200 miles away. Is it not the case that IPSA almost seems to be at war with new young Members who have family responsibilities some distance from this House, and without consultation has changed the transport arrangements for families and is making it more and more difficult for families to stay together when we are doing the difficult job that we do in this House?

[Sir George Young]

I believe people of all incomes, all ages and all types of family arrangements should be eligible to become Members of Parliament, and the allowance regime should not penalise any particular group or deter any particular group from becoming MPs. IPSA has said that it will conduct a review of the regime. I believe that that is an important step, and I know that other hon. Members will feed into the review points similar to the one that the hon. Gentleman has raised, so that Members are not separated from their families for large lengths of time.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am aware that the Government have so far announced in just two weeks some 24 reviews; there may well be many more. May we have a debate in the House on the number of consultants who will be employed to conduct these reviews—and, possibly, the Leader of the House might be agreeable to having a debate on whether we need a review to look at the number of reviews?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that that was meant in an entirely helpful way. I see nothing wrong in having a review on a serious and complex issue, in order to ensure that Governments come to the right conclusion, and the last Labour Government announced a long series of reviews. At the same time, we are taking steps to cut costs in-year on IT and the use of consultants, and I see no conflict between having some serious reviews on constitutional issues, economically conducted, and at the same time reviewing the use of consultants more widely within Whitehall.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to a number of questions asked during BIS questions, may we have a debate, or at least a clear statement, on the future of the agency workers directive, which would affect beneficially and give minimal protection to millions of workers in many constituencies, including my own? Before the election there was a clear commitment to enforce the agency workers directive. There seems to be some confusion in the new Government; that may be the product of having Ministers from different parties in the Department, but we need a clear statement so that we know where we are.

[Sir George Young]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that there was sometimes confusion between Ministers when they all came from the same party. On the serious issue that he raises, I understand that it was touched on during BIS questions, but I will ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to him, dealing with the specific question that he asks about the agency workers directive.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Given the contradictory answers given to me and to the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by the Secretary of State, I wonder whether we could have a debate on the loan facility for Sheffield Forgemasters, given that it is not only of importance to Sheffield but of strategic national importance for manufacturing.

[Sir George Young]

That sounds an excellent candidate for an Adjournment debate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is successful in the ballot.

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

For the convenience of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman publish in a single document a list of all the reviews that the Government are undertaking, their purpose and their time scale?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman tables a question for written answer along those lines, I am sure that he will get a full reply.

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

Is it true that the Lib Dem part of the coalition is continuing to claim state funding, despite not being in opposition, and if so, should we not have an urgent debate on that obvious way to save the Leader of the House some money?

[Sir George Young]

Short money is available to Opposition parties; it is not available to Government parties. On the more general question, we are committed to a reform of party funding, and that was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time—a full day debate, on the Floor of the House—on human rights around the world, in which we might discuss, for instance, the problem in Russia and the Government’s change of policy in relation to Russia, which is cutting all the programmes that engage with civil society in Russia and that make it possible for people to defend their rights against a very difficult regime, in a situation where very few people have an opportunity to put forward their legitimate rights and few people have an opportunity to assemble? Will he ensure that Ministers come to that debate and explain their change of policy on Russia?

[Sir George Young]

It sounds to me an ideal question to put to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers when that time arises.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

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

May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the forthcoming week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

Mr Speaker, you informed the House on Tuesday of the subjects for debate on the Queen’s Speech. The business for next week will be:

Tuesday 1 June—The House will not be sitting.

Wednesday 2 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subjects for debate, as you announced, Mr Speaker, will be education and health.

Thursday 3 June—A general debate on European affairs.

The business for the week commencing 7 June will include:

Monday 7 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Constitution and home affairs will be debated.

Tuesday 8 June—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Economic affairs and work and pensions will be debated.

Wednesday 9 June—Second Reading of the Identity Documents Bill.

Thursday 10 June—General debate: subject to be announced.

In accordance with the Standing Orders, the House will meet at 2.30 pm on Wednesday 2 June.

As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Budget will be on 22 June.

Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise at the end of business on Thursday 29 July and, subject to the will of the House, return on Monday 6 September for two weeks.

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for setting out the forthcoming business and I would like once again to congratulate him on his appointment as Leader of the House. As I said yesterday, he has served as shadow Leader of the House for some years, so he brings a wealth of experience to his position. Indeed, he brings such a wealth of experience that it is rather a poor show that he has not been made a full member of the Cabinet. Some say he would have brought a touch of class to the table. I am confident that, had he been a full member, there would have been an element of common sense and consideration for the House in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government’s handling of the £6 billion cuts announcement and the leaking of the Queen’s Speech.

The fact that we read about the contents of the Queen’s Speech in newspapers at the weekend before it was announced to Parliament displayed a disturbing lack of courtesy to the House. The response from Downing street is that although they are disappointed, there will be no leak inquiry. That demonstrates extremely poor judgment from the Government, and I ask the Leader of the House to explain why no investigation will be carried out.

It was also extremely disturbing that the Government chose to announce £6 billion of spending cuts while the House was not sitting. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, recognised that that was not the way to treat the House when you granted the urgent question tabled by the Opposition yesterday. We thank you for that. In effect, we saw the Chief Secretary to the Treasury being virtually dragged to the House so that Members could question him on the cuts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, did not even bother to turn up. I understand that he was spotted walking around Whitehall—but clearly in the opposite direction from the House so that Members could not question him on the cuts.

I think the Chancellor refused to give details of his cuts announcement to the “Today” programme because he did not want to be discourteous to the journalists who were assembling for him at 10 o’clock. I have to say that it is a shame he did not have the same worries about showing discourtesy to the House.

Rumour has it that the Chancellor might be popping in for the Budget statement, which we on the Opposition Benches are obviously quite excited about. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will actually be there in person, and not his new friend?

I am sure the Leader of the House is more than aware of the concern among not only the Opposition but his own Back Benchers about the proposal providing for the Dissolution of Parliament only if 55% or more of the House votes in favour. The new Government have no mandate for this change, which could theoretically allow a Government to rule without the confidence of Parliament. That would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the Executive considerably. Given that the Deputy Leader of the House told us on Tuesday that there will be a full process for considering the Bill in question, with no guillotine, and acknowledged that there is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill?

The Leader of the House said yesterday that the Government intend to abolish Regional Select Committees and the important scrutiny function they provide. Do the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government intend to keep Regional Grand Committees, given the importance of scrutinising the regional effect of the cuts that have been announced?

Finally, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 105, which followed concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday about proposed changes in prosecuting rape cases that could grant anonymity to rape defendants.

[That this House believes that the Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed; fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists; is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review; is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal.]

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that could turn the clock back on rape cases, and I ask the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on this serious issue.

[Sir George Young]

Before I reply to the right hon. Lady’s questions, may I welcome her to her new post as shadow Leader of the House? She was a respected Minister in the last Government and she has always been a popular Member of the House; I look forward to working with her to further the interests of the House. May I also pay tribute to my predecessor, the right honourable and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the now acting leader of the Labour party? She took her responsibilities seriously and although she did not go quite as far as many of us had hoped on parliamentary reform, many reforms to the way in which the House works did take place while she was the Leader of the House.

There is a vital task ahead in rejuvenating parliamentary life and reconnecting it with the people we serve. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—I welcome him to his post—and I want Parliament to be strengthened and to be more effective and relevant, and it is the Government’s intention to allow that to happen. Of course, that will be challenging, but this is an opportunity for a fresh start.

On the questions that the right hon. Lady poses, my role as attending Cabinet makes no difference whatever to what I say or do; there is an abundance of common sense in the Cabinet without any need for it to be reinforced by me. I deplore the leak to which she referred. It was a discourtesy to the House and to Her Majesty, and steps will be taken to minimise the risk of such leaks occurring again.

On the statement about cuts, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Lady’s comments, because she was a Member of the House in 1997 when the then Chancellor announced the independence of the Bank of England four days after the election, before the House was sitting, and that was not even in the party’s manifesto. The right hon. Lady will have seen the relish with which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dealt with questions yesterday—a bravura performance—and no doubt the Opposition will think again before they ask to put another urgent question to him. Of course, the Chancellor will deliver the Budget.

On the 55% issue, we had a very useful debate on Tuesday, during which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was able to allay some of the concerns that were raised by Members. The Bill will be a constitutional Bill, all stages will be taken on the Floor of the House and there will be adequate opportunity for the House to debate it.

We have no intention of reintroducing Regional Select Committees as they were not a great success and were opposed by the Liberal Democrats and my party. We will announce our decision on Regional Grand Committees, which are a different proposition, in due course.

The right hon. Lady has raised a serious issue about rape and anonymity. I recognise the concern about this issue, and there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about this Government’s determination to tackle rape and sexual offences and to ensure that those who commit such offences are convicted and properly sentenced. No quarter will be given to those convicted of rape. However, the House will also be aware that some people’s lives have been wrecked by being falsely and maliciously accused of rape. That is why we have said that we will undertake a careful and sensitive analysis of the options and implications before we bring any proposals to Parliament. Of course, any proposals to change the law will have to go through this House and the other House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and his commitment to a sweeping redistribution of powers from the Government to Parliament. May I urge on him rather speedier action for the setting up of the House business committee, which the coalition document talks about being set up within three years? Surely, it could and should be set up this year.

[Sir George Young]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that we propose, in the week after the week for which I have announced the business, to introduce the proposals of the Wright Committee to establish a Back-Bench business committee—which the last Administration singularly failed to achieve before Parliament was dissolved. The three-year period refers not to the Back-Bench business committee but to the House business committee, which is a different proposition. I am as anxious as anyone else to get the Back-Bench business committee up and running. We will table the appropriate motions before the House in good time for the debate, which I anticipate will take place in the week after the week for which I have already announced the business.

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

As someone who argued in the last Parliament strongly for full and total transparency over Members’ claims and opposed the Tory private Member’s Bill that would have exempted Parliament from freedom of information legislation, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the new system that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has established is deeply bureaucratic and complex, and that it undermines both the work we have been elected to do and that of our staff? Do the chair and chief executive of IPSA not bear a heavy responsibility for discrediting what we all hoped, and certainly the public hoped, would be a new start to end the scandal of what occurred in the previous Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I recognise the concern on this issue. I attended a meeting between returning Members and members of IPSA a few days ago, and it was a lively meeting. No one wants to go back to the old, discredited system whereby the House fixed its allowances and they were administered by the House, and it was absolutely right to hand them over to an independent body. None the less, I recognise the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by Members.

Members are concerned about the staff whom they employed during the last Parliament—they want to go on employing them—and about their ability to retain offices in their constituency. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the communication, which we all received, that indicated some flexibility from IPSA on both issues and said that there is no need to make staff redundant or, indeed, to give up one’s constituency office. IPSA hopes to come to an arrangement whereby, later this year, funds will be made available for that to continue.

A large number of other issues need to be resolved. I am in the foothills of the technological mountain of making a claim. We need an intelligent conversation between the House and IPSA to resolve these issues. It needs to exhibit some flexibility in the rules it has set out. There needs to be a more thorough review of the regime in the very near future. To the extent that I have any responsibility, I should like to play my part. It is absolutely crucial that the allowance regime enable Members to do their jobs and the House to hold the Government to account, and we cannot have an allowance regime that gets in the way of that process.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House could find time for a debate to follow up the excellent question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House mentioned Parliament reconnecting with the people. May I suggest that a debate on IPSA would be useful, so that we could share best practice? Perhaps hon. Members could visit IPSA, so that we could see its working conditions and how it operates. By the same token, perhaps members of IPSA could come to constituency offices to see how we work.

[Sir George Young]

The chairman and the acting chief executive of IPSA will have heard the generous invitation that the hon. Gentleman has extended to them. I go back to what I said a moment ago: we need intelligent and serious discussion between the House and IPSA to resolve the real issues that he raises. Together with the usual channels and perhaps the political parties, I would like there to be a channel of communication that can resolve such issues without the sort of shouting matches that we have heard in recent days.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I share the concerns about the fact that the coalition agreement included a commitment—to my mind it was a firm commitment—to give anonymity to defendants in rape trials. May we have an urgent debate on that, and will the Leader of the House confirm that the issue is so controversial that it should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and considered in the round, along with the issue of the number of rapes that go unreported, and the number of reported rapes that do not result in a prosecution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady will know that no legislation on the issue has been proposed in this Session. In the debate on home affairs on Monday 7 June, there will be an opportunity for the real concerns that exist on the issue to be ventilated. Of course we need to have adequate discussion. The proposal is that we go back to the regime that existed until, I think, 1988, in which there was anonymity. In her recent report, Baroness Stern did not come out on either side, but she said there should be full debate on this very sensitive issue, and that is what I want to promote.

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

May we have a debate on the 2008 report from the Procedure Committee on electronic petitioning, an opportunity that the previous Government denied this House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a system of e-petitions would make this House more accessible for many, and would also mean that there would be no need to maintain the rather useless system on the No. 10 website?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and his Committee did in the previous Parliament on e-petitions. We are anxious to take the matter forward. He will have seen in the coalition agreement specific commitments on the issues he has raised, so the answer is yes, of course I want to take forward the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. I would also like that Committee to look at the commitments given by the coalition in the agreement to make even faster progress on this important issue.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House when more information will be available about the £1.1 billion-worth of cuts to local government? In Lewisham, 18,000 homes are due for improvement under the decent homes programme. The previous Government indicated that £154 million would be made available for that work. Will the new Government honour that commitment, and when will the House have a proper opportunity to debate the future funding of social housing?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday about the additional resources that were found for investment in affordable housing. I hope that some of that money will go to her constituency. Frankly, the previous Government’s record on building social housing was deplorable.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us a debate on the awarding of jubilee medals? I have been approached by immigration officers who live in and around my constituency, who are understandably upset that immigration officers were not awarded the golden jubilee medal, unlike other important public servants such as police and prison officers. Immigration officers are on the front line against terrorism. Will the Leader of the House agree to speak to the relevant new Minister, so that we can recognise the good work of immigration officers, retrospectively award them the golden jubilee medal, and consider them for the diamond jubilee medal?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He may want to seek an opportunity for a wider debate on the subject, either in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. Of course I will pass on to my ministerial colleagues the forceful case that he makes.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

This morning, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a major speech on welfare reform. Not only did he not come first to this House; he made the speech at half-past 9, and as a result it was too late to table an urgent question. When will the Leader of the House assert himself and require his colleagues to make announcements to this House?

[Sir George Young]

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has some specific policy proposals to put before the House, he will of course make them. He made a general speech about his approach to welfare reform. He is committed to abolishing the root causes of poverty; and I hope the whole House will join him in expressing that ambition.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Leader of the House will be well aware that before the general election, there was strong cross-party support for the creation of a supermarket ombudsman—yet there was no mention of that in the Queen’s Speech. We know, however, that the measure needs to be implemented soon in order to enforce the regulation that the Competition Commission brought forward on 4 February, so will the Leader of the House reassure the House that the Government will find time to introduce the necessary primary legislation in order to bring forward that important measure?

[Sir George Young]

I would be misleading my hon. Friend if I said that we could find time. That specific measure was not in the Queen’s Speech, as he will have seen; nor, from memory, was it in the coalition agreement. For that reason I cannot give the immediate commitment he has asked for. None the less, I shall raise with my right hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the important point he has made, in order to clarify the coalition Government’s approach to supermarkets and competition.

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

During the general election, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said in the north-west that he questioned the legitimacy of some of the grants and financial support that had gone to industry in the recent past. Given the importance of protecting the manufacturing base, can we have an urgent debate on whether there is any truth in some of the stories that have been running, such as the Government’s seeking to claw back the loan guarantee given to Vauxhall Motors and the moneys given to Sheffield Forgemasters?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s constituency interests, and he might have an opportunity to raise those either in further debates on the Queen’s Speech or, when the time comes, through direct questions to the Ministers concerned.

I have now refreshed my memory of the coalition agreement, which does in fact refer to an

“Ombudsman in the Office of Fair Trading who can proactively enforce the Grocery Supply Code of Practice and curb abuses of power”,

so I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is reassured by that.

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

In opposition, my right hon. Friend, now the Leader of the House, expressed himself robustly against the permanent colonisation of Parliament square, and against the guillotining of Bills as they went through the House. Will he make a statement to the House on what we propose to do about those two matters now that we are in government?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such an interest in the speeches I have made in the past. It is certainly the Government’s intention not to guillotine Bills automatically in the way that the previous Government did, and to allow adequate opportunity for debate.

On Parliament square, we need to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the right to protest and, on the other, the conservation of a very important site, right in the middle of the capital, next to Westminster abbey and the Houses of Parliament. In my view, the balance at the moment is not right. The House will know that the Mayor of London is seeking to enforce the byelaw under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, under which it is an offence to erect tents or other paraphernalia without permission of the Mayor, so I hope we can come up with the right balance. People should protest there but they do not have to live there all the time and create what is becoming a shanty town, which does not do credit to the environment in which Parliament square is located.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate to define “affordable” or “social” housing? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the right hon. Gentleman referred to a commitment to build social housing, but he was asked specifically about council house building, so can we have some answers from the Government on whether they will renege on the commitment to build council housing?

[Sir George Young]

Those in housing need do not mind whether it is the council or a registered social landlord who provides their home. What they want is a home, and it is a fact that, for a given amount of money, one can build more homes if the money goes through registered social landlords than if it goes to the local authority. So, I would not go along with the hon. Gentleman in endorsing the idea that such housing has to be council housing. What is needed is affordable, social housing, whoever provides it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the working of IPSA? Other Members have commented on that, but for staff who have been told they will have to wait until to November to know whether their employment will continue, the position is frankly unacceptable. That needs to be sorted out earlier rather than later.

[Sir George Young]

Of course, my hon. Friend can apply for a debate about IPSA. It is important to recall that IPSA is an independent body, and the House has decided that it will not get directly involved in fixing or paying the allowances. None the less, I agree that there is a need for a sensible debate between the House and IPSA to ensure that Members of Parliament can effectively do their job. If my hon. Friend wants to apply for a debate, he is free to do so.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The Government have announced that they intend to review all contracts signed by the previous Government. That obviously creates much uncertainty and concern, particularly in respect of the A400M military transport aircraft, which will create thousands of jobs in the UK. May we have an early debate to try to end the uncertainty?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, and of course the hon. Gentleman can table questions to the appropriate Minister to get clarification of the important issue he has raised—he might like to follow that route to get a swift response. I understand the concern in his constituency.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that, in the Queen’s Speech debate that he announced on constitutional and home affairs, the Government will set out clearly their position on the Human Rights Act 1998? My right hon. Friend and I both stood on a manifesto to repeal the Human Rights Act. Since the election, we have been unable to deport a suspected terrorist because of that Act. It is crucial that action be taken as soon as possible to ensure that the human rights of terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants are not put before those of decent, law-abiding people.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I assure him that the specific questions he has raised about human rights will be addressed in the debate on home and constitutional affairs.

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

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 75?

[That this House applauds the work of One North East in promoting sustainable economic growth across the North East of England since 1999; recognises the role One North East has played in regeneration and job creation in the region over the last 11 years; understands the importance of the support it gave over 4,000 businesses during the recent recession; supports its vision for a future North East economy that ensures the people of the region benefit from improved prosperity; and calls on the Government to strengthen the support given to the North East economy through One North East.]

One NorthEast, the regional development agency based in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne North, has brought great benefits throughout the north-east region. In the light of the recent announcement of cuts to regional development agencies, and the concern that that is causing throughout the region, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that extremely important issue?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady puts forcefully the concern in her constituency. May I suggest that she apply for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall, where the issues she has raised can be tackled in more detail and she can get a response from Ministers? She may have heard what the Chief Secretary announced yesterday, when he outlined his commitment to laying the foundations for recovery by getting the deficit under control—a huge deficit, which we inherited from the outgoing Government.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall the prayer of St. Augustine, which can be paraphrased as, “Lord make me chaste, but not yet”? In that context, will he explain why it will take three years to establish a business committee, a principle for which I welcome his commendation?

[Sir George Young]

The Wright Committee made several propositions and it suggested that they should be implemented in stages. The early recommendation dealt with the Back-Bench business committee—the one on which we plan to make immediate progress. There was a much broader recommendation about a House committee, and it was always envisaged that that would be set up towards the end of the process of implementing the Wright recommendations. We have given a commitment, which did not exist previously, to do that within three years. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the progress that has been made on that—it is an advance on the position at the end of the previous Parliament.

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

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 85?

[That this House expresses concern that speculation over the future of the new hospital at Wynyard is causing anxiety for staff, patients and the community; and seeks an assurance from Government that the existing commitment to build a new acute general hospital at Wynyard to replace Hartlepool University and North Tees University Hospitals will be honoured; and recognises that the new facilities will help to address issues of health inequalities that are a feature of many communities within the catchment area.]

In view of the £6 billion cuts package, will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate about the NHS capital programme and, in particular, grant an opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the new hospital at Wynyard?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Chief Secretary said yesterday about exempting the health service from the cuts.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Presumably and hopefully during this Parliament we will continue the practice of holding topical debates. Therefore, may I put in an early bid for a topical debate in the week beginning 14 June, which is carers’ week, to support early-day motion 14, which commands the support of colleagues on both sides of the House?

[That this House expresses its respect for the six million people of all ages in the UK who provide unpaid help, care and support to a relative or friend who, because of frailty, illness or disability, would not otherwise be able to manage; notes that despite the huge contribution carers make to society, many carers continue to remain unsupported in their caring roles without the chance of a break or respite; is concerned that many carers are hidden, unheard and unable to access relevant and practical advice, information and services; further notes that Carers Week, a partnership of national charities, takes place this year from 14 to 20 June, with the theme A life of my own; and believes that without significant reform of the care and support system carers will not be able to access support at times of crisis, will not be able to work, which has a lasting impact on the economy, and will not have the chance of a life of their own that they deserve.]

Such a debate will be a good opportunity for the House to commend and celebrate the work of some 6 million carers throughout the UK who give invaluable support.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend’s bid is in pole position, because it is the only bid that we have received so far for a topical debate, and it would be appropriate. Of course, once we get a Back-Bench business committee up and running, it will decide the subjects for topical debates.

To pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), it might be easier to have a topical debate on IPSA rather than him applying for an Adjournment debate.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the difference between this Con-Dem Government’s rhetoric and reality? There has been lots of rhetoric about slimming down government, but so far they have created 33 commissions or other forms of inquiry—and that number is rising.

[Sir George Young]

All the work will take place within a constraint on public expenditure, so it does not follow at all that those commissions of inquiry will lead to an explosion in public expenditure. The hon. Lady will recall from 1997 that the then incoming Government set up one or two commissions in order to clarify, get a better outcome from, and inform their policy.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

May we have a statement from an Education Minister on the impact of a reduction in the subsidy provided by the teachers’ Training and Development Agency, which is causing severe financial hardship, especially to small primary schools in my constituency? They must find an additional £1,000 for each graduate teacher trainee that they take on, for which they could not have budgeted—and that at a time when they are already going through financial hardship. It would be helpful to have a statement on whether that reduction can be delayed until schools can budget for it.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises a good point which directly affects his constituency. During debates on the Queen’s Speech there will be an opportunity to raise education issues. He might seek either to intervene or to make a speech and make his point then.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of the utter dismay felt by local people and businesses in Nottingham about the deferral of the planned widening of the A453, which links the M1 to the city of Nottingham from the south, and which is absolutely vital to our economic prosperity? Will he find time for a debate on that important issue?

[Sir George Young]

As a former Transport Secretary, I should have been aware of the feeling on that issue. May I suggest that the hon. Lady apply for an Adjournment debate, which would be the appropriate forum to develop her case and explore with Ministers the possibility of a way forward?

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

First, does the Leader of the House accept that the larger demonstration in Parliament square represents a real security risk? At the start of this new Parliament, he must show the dynamism to do something about it. Secondly, when will the Embankment entrance between the Norman Shaw buildings open? It is inconvenient to Members that it is closed.

[Sir George Young]

On the second point, I will raise the matter with the appropriate officials in the House and ensure that my hon. Friend gets a reply. On the first, I would be reluctant to comment on issues relating to security.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware that we need a very early statement on the question of Building Schools for the Future? Hundreds of schools up and down Britain are awaiting the knowledge of when the building is going to start, including two in my constituency at Shirebrook and Tibshelf. Instead of waffling on about welfare to work, would it not be sensible to get construction workers back into work, building those schools, and to start a new process—not this daft coalition?

[Sir George Young]

The Chief Secretary did find extra resources yesterday for construction—he announced extra investment in affordable housing. There is a debate on education next week, when I hope the hon. Gentleman raises that matter with Education Ministers and gets an answer.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the appalling situation following the centralisation of A and E units throughout the country that was introduced by the previous Government? My constituents have to travel 15 miles to a hospital in Blackburn—there are now no A and E units in Burnley, Pendle or Rossendale.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern, and during the campaign we proposed a moratorium on centrally driven closures of accident and emergency departments. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seek the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to raise that important local issue?

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

May I welcome the rowing back by the Leader of the House from the explicit commitment to extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants? It contrasted with “we will consider” finding ways to invest in new rape crisis centres. I also hear that we are now “considering” anonymity. May we have an early debate on the Stern review, which said that there was no compelling evidence that anonymity protects men, but that there is a case for more research on that?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Lady recalls what Stern said, she will know that the report also said that nor was there a case for the opposite. I have some sympathy with the case she makes for a debate on this important subject. Without making any firm commitments, and in light of the fact that I hope that we will have a Back-Bench business committee, I would like to find time for that important issue to be explored. However, I am not sure that what I said warranted the description “rowing back”.

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

May we have a debate to provide an opportunity for the Opposition to do something that they have not yet done, which is to say sorry? The terms of the debate will need to be set with care, given that the Opposition need to move on from their present condition of denial and being sorry only for themselves to one of penitence, regret and being sorry for the damage that they caused to the country while in government?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What was remarkable yesterday in the urgent question was the total absence of any contrition from Opposition Members for the shambles in which they left this country.

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

I am looking at a photograph of a British National party councillor, Steve Batkin, with some individuals he describes as loyal patriots who are doing Nazi salutes outside a war memorial while clutching the British flag. It is even more poignant today, given the commemoration of Dunkirk. Will the Leader of the House consider making time for a statement, perhaps from the Minister of State for Schools, about the appropriateness or otherwise of BNP councillors who hold such appalling views and who consort with such individuals serving on governing bodies such as that of Edensor high school in my constituency?

[Sir George Young]

The whole House will share the hon. Gentleman’s views about the offensive nature of that photograph. Of course I will raise with the Schools Minister the specific issue about the appropriateness of certain individuals serving on school governing bodies.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? I am sure that he will do a superb job.

I welcome his abolition of the regional Select Committees. However, will he consider reinstating an annual general debate on London, in Government time, so that we may have an opportunity to raise a wide variety of issues, as we used to have in the past?

[Sir George Young]

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point as I used to be a London Member and take part in those regular debates. Without giving any firm commitment, I shall see whether we can move in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests.

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

May I thank the Leader of the House and his deputy for redeeming, in very short order, the promise to the House that Back Benchers should be able to decide which debates we have in Back-Bench time? We have heard today some very good examples from Members on both sides of the House. Does he accept that if Back Benchers can prove that they can run their own time effectively, and Parliament can run its own time effectively, it adds to the urgency of bringing forward a fully fledged business committee so that Parliament, not Government, decides the agenda of this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

May I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this and the previous Parliament on carrying forward the agenda for reform? I have seen the motions on the Order Paper that he has tabled. I hope that he will recognise that the commitment that we have given to introduce within three years a House committee goes further than we got in the previous Parliament. I want to get the Back-Bench committee up and running, and when that is firmly established, to move on to the next stage of merging it with a House committee. Therefore, I think that there is no difference between us on destination and I hope that there is no disagreement either on pace.

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

Could we have a debate as soon as possible on the allocation of health funding? Mindful, as I am, of the vote of the whole House shortly on the chairmanship of Select Committees, I must point out none the less that the Labour party put in place a gerrymandered allocation of health funding, which means that the good people of the East Riding, for instance, have only £1,200 per head spent on their health care, whereas the people of Hull, who are much younger and generally fitter, receive 50% more. It is simply wrong.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and if he is quick he can table—I think—an oral question for 2 June, when the Health Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box and in a position to deal with the inequities to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on advice given by civil servants to Ministers, with particular reference to the advice used by the Chief Secretary yesterday to say that the future jobs fund, which many of us regard as a major success of the previous Government, is not working? We would all like to see that advice. Will the Leader of the House assure us that we can have a debate on that matter?

[Sir George Young]

There will be a debate on that matter, because the Department for Work and Pensions has a day in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The fund is not being abolished; it is being phased out and fed into—[Laughter.] It is not being abolished with immediate effect; it is being run down, and the new work programme will take over. As I said, however, there will be an opportunity during the Queen’s Speech debate for the hon. Gentleman to press the issue about the advice given to Ministers.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Can I ask for a debate on Government co-ordination of business unemployment support? The biggest private sector firm in my constituency has just gone into administration, leading to the immediate loss of 650 jobs in Hartlepool. I am concerned that those people will find it difficult to secure alternative employment, yet the Department charged with helping business has been asked to find the biggest cuts. We have just helpfully heard from the Leader of the House that the future jobs fund, which has been so important and successful in Hartlepool, is being phased out. What reassurance can he give me that those workers, who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, will be able to get support, despite the best efforts of the new Government?

[Sir George Young]

All existing commitments under that programme will be honoured, and it will be replaced by a different programme that we hope will be more cost-effective. Of course, I will raise with Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the hon. Gentleman’s point about support being extended to those in his constituency who face the loss of their jobs.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has pointed out the uncertainty surrounding the future of One NorthEast, the regional development agency in the north-east. At the same time, the recent cuts targeted BIS and the Department for Communities and Local Government. We all know that we need to build up manufacturing and industry, particularly in the north-east and the green industries. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we are to do that and how regional development agencies will be funded to support it?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady makes her point very forcefully. Next Thursday there will be questions to the relevant Minister, and she may like to table a question and use the opportunity during questions to that Department to get a substantive answer.

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

Given that Ministers of this Conservative Government, particularly those sporting a yellow tie, are positively salivating at the prospect of imposing swingeing cuts which less than a month ago they were campaigning against, when can we have a debate on the economic nonsense of the Government’s saying that they will fully fund the Crossrail project—a good decision—and yet, at the same time, significantly undermining Crossrail’s value for money by cancelling the third runway at Heathrow?

[Sir George Young]

We made a firm manifesto commitment on the third runway at Heathrow, which the hon. Gentleman would expect us to honour. I welcome his support for what we said on Crossrail. It is an important project that we want to take through. However, if he wants to press the Transport Secretary more fully on the funding issues, there will be an opportunity to do so at Transport questions.

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

The Leader of the House will know that, in the previous Parliament, all parties supported the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics in London. In the light of the change of Government and the many new Members, may we have an early debate—perhaps a topical debate—about the future of the Olympics, given that the Government have announced £6 billion-worth of cuts, including some to the infrastructure relating to the Olympic games, and more worryingly, cuts in the departmental spending of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which could affect the ability of our athletes and para-athletes who are now in training to be successful?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

The Government are determined to make the 2012 Olympics a success, but in view of the interest of a large number of new Members I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about a bid for a topical debate on the future of the Olympics.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I was going to welcome the right hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly to his new post, because he is a fine and decent man, and he will have a splendid deputy and wonderful staff to back him up. However, he has let himself down today. He should surely not be defending the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announcing elsewhere what he is planning to do about benefits, which will affect many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, rather than bringing that decision to this House. The Leader of the House also said that he deplored the leaking of the Queen’s Speech, but he is not announcing any practical measures to ensure that the person who did it is sacked. Is he really going to be a proper Leader of the House or is he just going to use all the phrases that we used in the past?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I feel sure that there was a request for a debate or a statement and I just did not hear it.

[Sir George Young]

I recall the hon. Gentleman answering business questions in the previous Parliament, when the Leader of the House was not here, and using some of the expressions that I may have used this morning. However, on his substantive point, there was nothing in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that announced any change of Government policy. It was a scene-setting speech about his approach to welfare reform, and it was perfectly appropriate for him to make his speech in that forum. He will appear before the House in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when the hon. Gentleman can press him further.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

This morning a journalist on the Sheffield Star, Richard Marsden, rang to inform me that a meeting to which local councillors in the east midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber had been invited to discuss the proposed route of the high-speed rail link to Sheffield and Leeds had been cancelled. That seems to be the clearest indication that the Government have decided to abandon the high-speed rail route to Sheffield and Leeds, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has abandoned my city of Sheffield. Once again a decision has been made with no statement to this House. Could we rectify the situation at the first instance?

[Sir George Young]

I am always cautious when a reporter rings me up with a story, and I do not always believe everything that I am told. However, I will make some inquiries about the hon. Gentleman’s point and get somebody from the Department for Transport to contact him as soon as they can.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Can we have an early statement on the Government’s national planning statement, in view of the fact that they have scrapped the Infrastructure Planning Commission? The issue is particularly important to those of us on the Opposition Benches, on whom the Government will be relying for controversial decisions on nuclear power and energy projects, because they have decided that their junior partner can have the day off on those occasions.

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals on housing and planning, because they will be in a Bill that will be introduced in this Session. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his points.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I welcome the suggestion by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for a debate about saying sorry, so that those of us on the Labour Benches can say that we are not sorry that we prevented the global recession from turning into a global depression; we are not sorry that we kept half a million people in work who otherwise would not be in work; we are not sorry that we kept businesses going that would have closed; and we are not sorry that we will never ever say that unemployment is a price worth paying.

[Sir George Young]

Again, there was absolutely no recognition at all from the hon. Gentleman of the problems that this country now faces because of the irresponsible way in which the outgoing Government borrowed £3 billion a week, with no plans for rebalancing the country’s books.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate about the poor quality of the teaching of history in our so-called great public schools? What else could explain the Deputy Prime Minister’s comment that his reforms represent the most important reforms since the Great Reform Act of 1832, including universal suffrage, apart perhaps from his innate tendency towards sanctimonious hyperbole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that that directly related to the future business of the House, but the Deputy Prime Minister will be replying to one of the days of debate on the Queen’s Speech. I will make a point of drawing his attention to the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made and ensuring that he gets a robust reply.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Could we have a debate on the role, responsibility and competence of the Electoral Commission, following not only the well publicised problems during the general election but the less publicised problem that arose for Members such as myself who are historically described as Labour and Co-operative party candidates? We were told by the Electoral Commission that that description was no longer valid, which caused enormous confusion at a very sensitive time during the election campaign and could have disqualified us from standing.

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear that, and I wonder why that name had not already been registered with the Electoral Commission so that that problem need not have arisen. A large number of people were turned away from the polling stations at or around 10 o’clock, and that must never happen again. We must ensure that those who want to vote are entitled to vote. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate, before our memories of the recent election fade, to determine in what ways the quality of the election and the way in which it was delivered might be improved.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation, which has enabled 42 Members to question the Leader of the House in 41 minutes. That is a very good start indeed, and I hope that that will continue.

Select Committees: Allocation of Chairs

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 122B (Election of Committee Chairs), the chairs of those select committees subject to the Standing Order be allocated as indicated in the following Table:

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

With the leave of the House, it may not come as a surprise to the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) if I say that we do not propose to establish regional Select Committees.

On the issue of timing, it is important that Select Committees are established quickly in order to hold the Government to account. That is why we put this motion on the Order Paper at the first possible opportunity, in order that due progress might be made.

If the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) comes to business questions tomorrow, he may find a hint of an answer to the question that he posed.

We will, of course, keep the House fully informed about the future of the Select Committee to monitor the activities of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Government's Legislative Programme (2010-11)

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Written Statements

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

Following yesterday’s state opening of Parliament, and for the convenience of the House, I am listing below the 22 Bills that the Government intend to bring forward in the current Session:

Academies Bill

Local Government Bill

Identity Documents Bill

Equitable Life Payments Scheme Bill

Office for Budget Responsibility Bill

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Parliamentary Reform Bill

Pensions and Savings Bill

Welfare Reform Bill

Freedom Bill

Financial Services Regulation Bill

Energy Security and Green Economy Bill

Education and Children’s Bill

Health Bill

Public Bodies Bill

Decentralisation and Localism Bill

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Scotland Bill

European Communities (Amendment) Referendum Lock Bill

Postal Services Bill

Terrorist Asset Freezing Bill

Armed Forces Bill

In addition, a draft Parliamentary Privilege Bill was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech.

Detailed information about each of these Bills has been published on the No. 10 website at http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/queens-speech-2010-3-50297