Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I agree; it was disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said to other Members about discussing with my colleagues at the Treasury how they might inform the House about the response to that situation. Of course, the case was announced only yesterday by the Financial Conduct Authority, so we will have to see what Ministers’ views are on the action that has been taken.

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

The Leader of the House should not be celebrating a 0.3% reduction in childhood obesity when one third of kids are leaving our primary schools overweight or obese. Can we have an urgent debate with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the universal credit programme, which has cost millions of pounds but has not yet reached 6,000 people?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Lady will have heard me say that the latest figures on childhood obesity are a small step in the right direction and, after years in which it was increasing, a very welcome one. It is one step on what needs to be a very long journey to reverse probably two decades of increasing childhood obesity. Regarding a debate on universal credit, the hon. Lady will have noted that the Liaison Committee has set down a debate on the implementation of universal credit for estimates day on Monday week.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, the House took an important and positive decision to give Back-Bench Members, through the Backbench Business Committee, the opportunity to assess the relative priority of debates. I am not sure of the view of shadow Leader of the House on the matter, but I hope that she might have a word with the shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), to make it clear that trying to revert to the past will actually undermine the independence of the Backbench Business Committee and of Members of this House.

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

There are 48,000 homes in the private rented sector in Liverpool. All those tenants had been heartened by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he said that he wants

“longer fixed-term, family-friendly tenancies that meet their needs.”

May we have an urgent statement about when the Government will honour that aspiration and support the proposals announced today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to scrap letting fees, end excessive rent rises and introduce long-term tenancies?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Lady is saying that she supports what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is doing to promote flexibility, quality and supply in the housing market, I am pleased. I suspect, however, that what she is saying is that we do not want to go beyond that to a rent control policy of the kind advocated by her leader. In that respect, she probably takes the same view as the shadow Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who said on “Channel 4 News” in January that

“rent controls are not going to work in practice”.

What the hon. Lady said was right then and it is right today.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend feels that I have not responded positively to the representations that she and our other hon. Friends made at business questions last week. We have, indeed, responded positively. Up to seven and a half hours are available on Monday 28 April for a debate on the principles of the Bill, and four hours are available on Tuesday 29 April for the further hybrid Bill procedures, which are themselves important and form a substantial part of the overall debate on Second Reading. I acknowledge that had it all been done in one day, that would have meant a very congested debate, but I think that that is pretty positive.

A Second Reading debate on a normal sitting day very often takes not the full amount of time, but sometimes—with statements and urgent questions—perhaps five hours or even down to four and a half hours. On this occasion, if we can minimise statements and urgent questions on Monday 28 April, we can have seven and a half hours of debate that day, with four hours the following day, which I calculate is broadly equivalent to two days of debate.

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

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

“What we are trying to do with the personal independence payment is to introduce it gradually”.—[Official Report, 9 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 264.]

My constituent Thomas O’Donnell originally made his claim eight months ago. He has only just had an assessment, and he is still not receiving any payment. He has serious epilepsy, and he cannot afford to eat. I have many other constituents who have waited months for an assessment. Please may we have an urgent statement from the Department for Work and Pensions about what it will do to ensure that my constituents and people everywhere get the support that they desperately need?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is no doubt aware that a written ministerial statement on the independent review of personal independence payment assessment is on the Order Paper to be made today, so she will have the chance to look at that. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the old system was broken: most claimants were getting indefinite awards without systematic reassessments. It was important to bring in a system that better reflects today’s understanding of disability and targets support to those who need it most. Last month’s National Audit Office report acknowledged that the reform started on time and on budget, and we have reduced risk during its introduction by rolling it out in phases.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall the debate on the local government finance settlement, during which it was illustrated that although every bit of the public sector, including local government, must do its bit to pay off the budget deficit we inherited from the previous Government, there are particular ways in which all administrations can focus on cutting waste and making savings in order to protect front-line services. Of course, we are enabling local authorities to keep council tax down. In particular, our “50 ways to save” document contains practical tips and guidance on making sensible savings and highlights how councillors can challenge officers to deliver savings and how taxpayers can challenge councils. I hope that he, along with his constituents, will be challenging his council to protect the front-line services that are most important to them.

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

My constituent Robert Barlow graduated with an honours degree and worked for some years as a microbiologist. He was then diagnosed with a serious heart defect and told that his working days were over. He was sent to Atos for an assessment. They stopped his benefits, which ended his access to free prescriptions. He was too ill to appeal. Robert died at the age of 47, struggling to get by. May we please have an urgent debate on the impact of too many of these Atos decisions on sick people, particularly when access to free prescriptions is taken away?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady will know, the House has had many opportunities to debate how we are proceeding with welfare reform, and rightly so. I hope she understands that we are proceeding on the basis of reforming what we inherited, because it was the previous Government who put work capability assessments in place. We have gone about ensuring that they work more effectively for the future, which is a continuing process. Welfare reform, and indeed the need to maintain the downward pressure on what would otherwise be escalating welfare budgets, which were not controlled under the previous Government, is not the issue. We need to focus resources on the people who are most in need, and that is what we are doing. I will talk with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about the circumstances of the case she describes—[Interruption.] I completely understand that, but I will talk with them so that she can have a response on the circumstances and how we are addressing those issues.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very good point. Just as Members have very much appreciated participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, they have equally benefited from participating in the police service parliamentary scheme. A meeting was held last week to set out what the scheme has achieved and to look forward. I hope Members will take advantage of it. Many of us benefit from the opportunity to spend time with the police service in our constituencies, but the scheme offers the opportunity to understand more systematically the character of policing, not just in our own constituencies, but elsewhere too. In the context of all the debates we are having about policing in this country, it would be wonderful if more Members demonstrated to the police service their commitment to understand the nature and challenges of policing today.

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

Last month, Liverpool city council won a High Court action, which ruled that cuts by the Government to European funding for Liverpool were unlawful. Last night, Liverpool city council had to agree £156 million-worth of cuts, which will impact severely on the provision of mandatory services, including social care to the elderly and children, yet yesterday the Prime Minister said that he does not believe the people of Liverpool are being short-changed. Can we please have an urgent debate on the Government’s blind spot when it comes to Liverpool?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government have no blind spot in relation to Liverpool. On the contrary, many of the things we are doing are helping Liverpool. Speaking personally, when I was Secretary of State for Health, two of the most important future building projects to which I gave my personal support were the rebuilding of Liverpool Broadgreen and Alder Hey hospitals. That does not ignore Liverpool; it supports Liverpool in the continuation of one of its most important services. I will not reiterate the points the Prime Minister made yesterday. He set out very clearly the figures for the level of support received per household in Liverpool relative to other places.

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

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

As there is no good will whatever from the Executive and there is no effective process for this House other than to be told what to do and have its agenda written for it on a daily basis by the Executive, then, yes, we rely on the good will of other people. My Select Committee—a number of colleagues who serve on it are present—relies upon its Clerks, who have done an absolutely stunning job. My own Clerk was at the printers last night producing a report for Members of all parts of this House until gone 9 o’clock, and I sent that report to every Member of the House at 11.20 pm.

Is this a trivial, pointless Bill or is it an important Bill? Is it appropriate that the Chair of a Select Committee is sending a report to Members of this House just before midnight for consideration the very next day? I do not think the Government have sent anything to Members, but they are asking their colleagues to walk through the Lobby on these issues. The way the House is being treated is outrageous—again. We can all get puffed up and annoyed by stuff, but this is serious. This is about the way in which the Bill will shape the next general election and how our charities and voluntary organisations will participate in our political life. This is not a trivial matter. It is not as though 95% of people vote—the numbers voting creep down ever lower. People say, “You’re not worth going out and voting for, any of you.” And then we do this.

If this is the way we treat the important topic of lobbying—“the next big scandal”, as the Prime Minister called it—and thousands of individual charities, it speaks ill of this place and I think that we can do better.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments in opening the debate on these important amendments. He has rightly outlined the anger that is felt on this side of the House, by groups in civil society and by our constituents. I have been contacted by more than 100 of my constituents about the Bill and they are looking to this Chamber to make representations on their behalf about how they can participate in our democracy in the future. I see this process as an affront to our democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Allen]

It is a continuing affront to our democracy, and I hope that Ministers—and future Ministers—will take this to heart and consider how the process of effectively scrutinising legislation can be amended.

I will now advertise another report by my Committee on the quality of legislation. It suggests, for example, mandatory pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills, apart from emergency ones. That is not from a desire to delay any legislation. I believe that in our form of democracy, the Government should get their business through. The contribution that Parliament makes is to ensure that legislation is more effective. Otherwise, we have to come back until we get it right—in this case, after the next general election. It does not save time to keep coming back to the House, as we did—infamously—on criminal justice Bills under the last Government, tinkering year after year and with Ministers getting the prestige of having a Bill before the House. Instead, Governments should listen to the House and get legislation closer to being right.

I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that pressure from Back Benchers on both sides of the House will force our Front Benchers to agree a better process of involving Parliament in partnership with the Executive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is precisely what I am doing. The failure to make the case for a higher-regulatory model has meant that neither House felt it appropriate to extend the scope of the Government’s provisions. That is not to say, however, that each place has not made very real contributions to ensuring that we deliver robust and effective provisions for a statutory register of lobbyists. Following the recommendations of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, the provisions were amended to ensure absolute clarity regarding the register’s application to parliamentarians. We also amended the Bill to ensure that the register does not impose disproportionate burdens on the smallest businesses. Further amendments were made in the House of Lords and many of those reflected discussion and debate within this Chamber.

Lord Tyler’s, amendment, which was agreed to by just 18 votes, would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers. I understand why he was seeking to make that change. However, it is the coalition Government’s view that it would dissociate the register from the clearly articulated problem that it is designed to address. The amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee would further detach the register from its objective, by extending the scope of the register to those who lobby senior civil servants.

The register is designed to complement the system by which Ministers and permanent secretaries publish their meetings and to address a specific and discrete problem within that context. Our view is that to extend the scope of the register to other public officials would provide no appreciable benefits because they are not required to publish their diaries.

Yes, we accept that lobbyists make communications to Government other than directly to Ministers and permanent secretaries, but ultimately it is Ministers and permanent secretaries who are responsible for the decisions taken within their Departments. Lord Tyler suggests that the register should apply to those who lobby special advisers. Special advisers may provide advice, but they are not decision makers. It is Ministers, not special advisers, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their Departments; and it is therefore only right that Ministers, not special advisers, are the main focus of the meeting reporting system and the register.

[Luciana Berger]

The Minister will know as he has been in this place a while—I am a relatively new MP; I have been here only since May 2010—that when we see a Minister, as we often do in Portcullis House or around this building, they often have, on their right arm, a special adviser. That special adviser is with them morning, noon and night, and also has meetings in the evenings and at weekends. The idea that we can dissociate that special adviser from the Minister is frankly ridiculous. I cannot understand the Minister’s rationale.

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have not finished my comments in relation to special advisers. There is an amendment in lieu to which I am about to refer. Ultimately, whether or not there are contacts with the special adviser, it is not the special adviser who signs off the decision; it is the Minister.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend illustrates a very impressive record of export promotion in the black country and the west midlands generally. We have done very well in increasing exports to some of the emerging markets and key markets for the future—China, India, Brazil and Russia, for example. We need to do more, however, because exports have been depressed, not least because of difficulties in the eurozone. The Government will look continuously to try to emulate the success of the west midlands, to which my hon. Friend referred.

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

It is a national disgrace that more than 350,000 people have had to turn to a food bank over the past six months. The Prime Minister has said twice from the Dispatch Box that this is because, under his Government, jobcentres are referring people to food banks. According to the many written answers I have received from Work and Pensions Ministers on this subject, however, that is simply not happening. The DWP has not been able to confirm how many jobcentres are doing this in practice or how officials decide whether someone is in need of emergency food aid. May we please have an urgent debate on this matter, on the wider causes of food poverty and on what the Government are going to do to stop the scandal of our people going to bed hungry?

[Mr Lansley]

First, it is a fact that Jobcentre Plus is signposting people to food banks, whereas the previous Government decided before the election that they would not do that. That is a positive thing to do. More food banks are being established—locally and more widely. It is important to offer that help. If people are in hardship, resources and funds are available to support them, and it is important for them to access the discretionary hardship funds.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I am slightly surprised by what he says. I saw the press report to which he refers but, as far as I am concerned, it did not represent an announcement of anything. Indeed, it did not bring Sir William McKay’s report into the public domain because I believe that it was published in March. As we have reported to the House before, we continue to discuss the report, which we welcome, and we will make a fuller response to it later in the year.

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

Last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refused to accept that the reason 500,000 people in our country have to access emergency food aid is social security delays. When I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, the reply told me that Lord Freud had not even visited a food bank. The Trussell Trust confirms today that the delays are the result of changes that have been made since April, so may we have an urgent debate attended by all Work and Pensions Ministers so that they can acknowledge that we have a problem in this country?

[Mr Lansley]

Like the hon. Lady, I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State speaking about precisely that issue during Work and Pensions questions. The situation is not as simple as she characterises it. It is clear, as the Trussell Trust itself rightly says, that the availability of food banks has increased, and they have been advertised through jobcentres, which was not the case before the election. The number of people accessing food banks increased by many times before the election and it has increased since.

What I think has been a particularly pointed issue is whether benefit processing times and delays were themselves leading to people accessing food banks. I tell the hon. Lady that benefit processing times have improved over the past five years. The number of benefits processed on time—that is, within 16 days—is up 4% since 2009-10.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend in relation to Sir Bruce Keogh. I think that he acted as anybody, objectively, would believe he should have done when in receipt of that information, in order to take a precautionary approach while trying to establish all the facts and to put patient safety first.

On my hon. Friend’s question about a statement, I know that he was here in his place when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responded to an urgent question on Monday. My right hon. Friend answered questions at that point, as well as making it clear that he would be willing to do so again in the future.

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

My constituent Richard Freeman has not seen his son in six years, since his ex-wife abducted him and went to live in America. Despite numerous British court orders stating that his son should be returned to him, his ex-wife has refused to comply. Government figures show that instances of parental child abduction have risen by 88% over the past decade. May we have an urgent debate on this rapidly growing problem? What steps can be taken to ensure that parents can be reunited with their children?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that Members across the House will have encountered cases similar to the one that the hon. Lady raises. They are very distressing and cause immense harm to families. Ministers are well aware of this issue, but I will of course ensure that my hon. Friends respond to her on this case. I do not recall this matter being debated recently, so she and colleagues across the House might like to ascertain whether a suitable opportunity could be found for an Adjournment or Back-Bench debate, as I know many Members are concerned about it.

Business of the House

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the UK Border Agency is developing a strategy to identify and resolve data issues, not least in response to a recommendation of the chief inspector of borders and immigration. That should ensure the quality of data and assist the agency in cleansing the data records on the system. If my hon. Friend has specific examples of constituents affected, I am sure that it would be helpful if he raised those with Home Office colleagues. We know that the UK Border Agency had a poor record in the past. The process of turning that around has begun and is progressing, but it will take time.

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

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), any time a Minister is asked about food poverty, their response is that we have seen jobs created in the private sector. I am shocked that the Government are not aware that working people are accessing emergency food aid in this country. When will the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, or a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs actually visit a food bank so that they can give more informed responses to the questions asked by Labour MPs?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady should think that we have not done that, although I can speak only for myself; I have not checked with other Ministers. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I visited a food bank in her constituency in the early part of last year or thereabouts. I completely understand the concern, of course. Access to food banks has been increased, and that is absolutely right. It is right that people should have access to food banks, and there is better access than there used to be in the past. We are setting out to ensure that those who are in the greatest need get the greatest support. However, it is not simply a matter of public sector support; it is about giving people the opportunity to have the dignity and independence that comes with work and earnings.