Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his concern. I will draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, of course, see whether it would be appropriate for the Government to make a statement in the light of that tragedy.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware of today’s report from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—highlighting a dramatic increase in the number of children being taken into care due to parental neglect. One of the most effective programmes in assisting dysfunctional and problem families is early intervention, yet these programmes are suffering across the country because of the Government’s savage cuts to local authority funding. So may we have a debate on this issue, in the hope that the Government will think again, if on the grounds not of compassion towards our children but of reducing the astronomical costs to the nation of keeping our children in care?

[Sir George Young]

The Government have sought to protect the early intervention grant for precisely the reasons cited by the hon. Lady. It is indeed the case that, following the tragedy of Peter Connelly, more local authorities are taking children into care. Whether they remain in care is, of course, a matter for the courts, but we want to learn the lessons from what has happened, take advantage of the report that has been published today and see whether we can improve the quality of life of those children who are at risk.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to keep the House informed of any changes in the position between this country and Ireland.

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

Today, Age UK published a report showing that the Government’s changes to housing benefit will mean a reduction of £12 a week for at least 80,000 pensioners. We know that the loss of £12 a week to a Cabinet of millionaires means nothing, but to my constituents it can mean the difference between eating and heating. May we have a debate in Government time, therefore, with a substantive motion, on the Government’s failure to meet their much-vaunted promise to protect the most vulnerable in a time of severe economic hardship, in the hope that perhaps they will begin to reconsider some of these vicious policies?

[Sir George Young]

I announced that there would be an Opposition day—subject to be announced—and it is perfectly open to the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to choose housing benefit as a subject. The policy we are introducing on housing benefit resembles very closely the commitment in the Labour party manifesto and the commitment supported by James Purnell. The hon. Lady might have heard the exchange on the “Today” programme, when the Minister for Housing and Local Government referred to the discretionary fund available to those who, for whatever reason, cannot move and are in hardship. That sum is now £140 million, compared with the £10 million it was initially, and my right hon. Friend has indicated that he is prepared to top that up. I hope that the hon. Lady will not cause alarm unnecessarily.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are of course trying to cut the cost of politics, and I am not sure whether buying many copies of Lord Mandelson’s book is compatible with that policy. I was interested to read today in The Guardian, which costs a lot less than Lord Mandelson’s book, this paragraph:

“Darling told…Brown…he was being ‘ludicrously over-optimistic, not only about growth prospects, but also about Britain’s ability to support such a large and expanding deficit’”.

I entirely agree that all Members of the House should be aware of that and other relevant paragraphs.

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

Yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister, in common with all Ministers in his Government, presented an image of housing benefit claimants living in vast properties and paying rents of £1,000 a week. He and the Government must know that nothing could be further from the truth. May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on the Government’s monstrous housing benefit proposals? If they are not reconsidered, they will not save any money but they will certainly put thousands of families on the street.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. As a former London Member, I know the price of rents in the city. I am not sure whether she was at Communities and Local Government questions, which has just concluded, but I understand that London MPs have been offered a meeting with the Minister for Housing to discuss exactly the issues she raises. I very much hope that she can attend that meeting.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Looking ahead, I have to say that the House will be doing very little but debate constitutional change in the weeks ahead. There will be a debate on the Report stage of the Bill to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and there will be ample opportunity to debate constitutional change and reform in the weeks ahead. I hope that I have correctly understood his question.

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

May we have an urgent debate—I stress the need for it to be urgent—on Building Schools for the Future? Following on from the question posed by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on the necessity for evidence-based decisions, may I say that what has become increasingly clear is that the Secretary of State for Education has never presented to this House, either in debate or in a statement, any kind of proof that his decisions were based on evidence, either of the economic need or of the educational need? Absolutely no detail has been provided, so one is left with the feeling that there is no Building Schools for the Future programme. This has caused enormous disquiet across the whole country, not least in my constituency. May I just point out to the Leader of the House that the people who are suffering most for the inequity and incompetence of the Secretary of State are our children? Our children are this country’s future, so it behoves this Government to afford proper time to this House to examine whether there is indeed a Building Schools for the Future programme, because the Secretary of State has markedly failed to convince any of us.

[Sir George Young]

I do not agree with the assertion at the beginning of the hon. Lady’s question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out very clearly in his statement on Monday the criteria that we used for deciding which projects would go ahead and which would not. He then answered questions for an hour and a quarter on those criteria. However, the hon. Lady will have a further opportunity next Monday, in Education questions, to pursue the matter.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[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?