Select Committee Effectiveness, Resources and Powers

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith]

That is certainly true and I think it is one of the issues that will have to be examined by the Joint Committee, which is about to embark on this work. The problems are difficult to solve and affect only a few inquiries. They certainly affected the work of my hon. Friend’s Committee, which was notably successful in getting some potentially unwilling witnesses to appear before it. I congratulate him on what the Committee achieved.

It should be stressed that, for the vast majority of the time, Committees deal with willing witnesses who are very happy to come and be examined by us, even if, sometimes, they are critically examined. Most of the time, we are gaining information from willing witnesses. I will come in a moment to what happens when we deal with Government. So far as all other bodies and persons are concerned, the instances in which a draconian power might be required are very few. My hon. Friend is right that such powers as the House has in this area are not very easy to use, and we will have to further consider that issue.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

What was the Liaison Committee’s thinking behind paragraph 133 of the report? It states that the Committee was

“persuaded that the disadvantages of enshrining parliamentary privilege in statute would outweigh the benefits”,

but that conclusion was reached ahead of all the work that is being done. It seems to pre-empt a lot of work that is ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I welcome the report from the Liaison Committee. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and all right hon. and hon. Members of his Committee on their work. We have heard from some of them this afternoon: my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). All do excellent work in their Select Committees to hold Government and other organisations to account.

As the report says, looking back over the last year of activity, Select Committees have done an important and successful job. The role of Select Committees has been continually evolving ever since their creation by Norman St John Stevas, who sadly passed away last year. The election of Chairs and of Committee members has strengthened the independence of Committees. It is two years since that was implemented following the recommendation of the Wright report, and it has worked well.

As the report states, despite the many demands on Members’ time, attendance is high—approximately 75%—and very few Members have a low attendance rate. The Committee noted that there are often good reasons for low attendance, not least the need to be in several places at once—something Members know only too well. That rate reflects the importance the House attaches to the role of Committees, and, I suspect, the impact that membership of a Committee can have on job satisfaction.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She made reference to the difficulties that Committees face. Many Members are placed on Bill Committees and Statutory Instrument Committees, and many are lost to the increasing size of the Executive, including Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and the shadow Executive.

[Ms Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not know what the answer is, given that Members of Parliament often have ambitions to be in the shadow Government or the Government and like to get promoted. We have made progress in the past few years in setting up a career path for those who wish to specialise in Select Committees, particularly in the area of scrutiny.

The report rightly says that holding the Government to account is the main purpose of Committee work. However, our constituents expect more than that. Parliament is here to hold the powerful to account, as well as the Government. Major multinationals are one example of powerful organisations that our constituents expect us to hold to account.

In that context, I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is in his place, on their work. The PAC has exposed the shocking conduct of companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google in minimising the taxes they pay in this country. The work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in its relentless pursuit and questioning of News International over phone hacking, often when the issue was ignored by many others, has already been commented on. I would like to add my congratulations to its members on playing such a major role in uncovering the scandal. It is only right that we use this debate to highlight the important work that our Select Committee system has done and to congratulate those involved on the work they do. The Liaison Committee’s report rightly praises the Transport Committee, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for its inquiry into motor insurance, which brought to light a major scandal.

It is not only major companies, however, that Select Committees need to scrutinise. The Government’s programme of increasing the involvement of the private sector in public services and the breaking up of the health service means that lines of accountability are becoming more and more blurred. The House and Select Committees have the opportunity to scrutinise what these new organisations are up to with public money, and we have to ensure that the Select Committees maintain their ability to follow public money, even if that involves the accounts of private companies. That is an area to which we have to pay particular attention given some of the changes being made.

I agree with the Liaison Committee report that the primary function of Select Committees is to scrutinise the Government, but I do not want to minimise the important role they perform in holding others to account. We share the Committee’s disappointment that the Government have not published more Bills in draft. They only published 18 Bills in draft in the 2010-12 parliamentary Session. Pre-legislative scrutiny is beneficial to the legislative process and is an area where Committees made up of members with in-depth policy knowledge can add real value. Will the Leader of the House commit, therefore, to increasing the proportion of Bills that the Government publish in draft? Even when the Government have published bills in draft, however, they have allowed insufficient time in some cases for effective pre-legislative scrutiny.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Department for Education on conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the special educational needs clauses of a forthcoming Bill. It was a tight timetable, but it gave us the chance to do the job. Ministers have been very open to meetings and to following up and taking onboard the advice of the Committee. It really can work.

[Ms Eagle]

As someone who gave evidence before entering the House to what were then known as Special Standing Committees, which evolved into pre-legislative scrutiny Committees, I think it is important to highlight best practice and carry on evolving positively the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny.

The Energy Bill and the Civil Aviation Bill are cited in the Committee’s report as examples of where the Government have not allowed enough time for Select Committees to do their work. The Committee is also right to highlight the shambles of the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill: the Select Committee members reorganised their work to enable scrutiny of the Bill at very short notice, only for the Government to pull the Bill and re-introduce it this Session. In retrospect, Committee Members could have spent many hours scrutinising it without the time constraint, which turned out not to be a time constraint. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the need for better organisation.

We note the Liaison Committee’s suggestion that Commons Select Committees should have first choice on whether to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than it being a decision of the Government. A Joint Committee could make a valuable contribution, but it is this House that is democratically elected and, as the Liaison Committee rights says in its report, it would make sense for a Committee of this House to consider whether a Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee. Will the Leader of the House comment on that suggestion?

[Sir Alan Beith]

There is a further strong argument, which is that once there is a Joint Committee, election will no longer be the process by which this House elects Committees. Instead, the Whips will perform the kind of function that they normally perform for Bill Committees, and that is not what we want.

[Ms Eagle]

I note that that is precisely the point the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee members made in their report. By highlighting that section, I am agreeing with him.

It is also worth considering whether we should go one step further. At the moment, it is for the Government to decide whether to use pre-legislative scrutiny at all. The Government are currently rushing ill-thought-out welfare legislation through the House that will hit people in work on low incomes the hardest. This is a piece of legislation that would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly evidence sessions. That was not allowed to happen, so could the Leader of the House consider whether, allowing for the Government to legislate immediately when there is an obvious need, we could have a Committee of this House deciding whether a Bill should receive pre-legislative scrutiny? These are not suggestions on which I have a settled view, but I am interested in hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members about possible changes in that direction.

The Liaison Committee is right to comment on the role of Select Committees in scrutinising ministerial appointments. As it says in its report, the Committee previously commented on this in its 2011 report, “Select Committees and Public Appointments”, which made recommendations for reforming the process. The Government’s response prompted a further report from the Liaison Committee last September, which highlighted the

“inadequacy of the Government’s response to our proposals”.

There has been no response from the Government to date, which is clearly unsatisfactory. This has been left hanging in the air for far too long, so will the Leader of the House say when the Government will be responding?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Governments tend to grow more and more grudging about ceding powers, whereas parties in opposition make free—they return to philosophical first principles and they tend to make promises. Let me push the hon. Lady on this point. What is the Labour party’s position on a few of these points? She should put it on the record. If there is ever a Labour Government in future, it may or may not be her that takes that position forward, but it would be useful to have on the record some promises that we can hold someone to account for in future.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me in all sorts of areas. I hope he realises from the tone of what I am saying that I am particularly interested in seeing what we can do to strengthen the role of the legislature in some of these areas. It is important to have a debate about the practicalities before we formulate an approach to this in the run-up to the next election. I am sure that he will be an avid reader of what comes out of that.

The Liaison Committee describes the main role of Select Committees as “influencing” Government. I understand the point the Committee is seeking to make. In outlining the role of Select Committees, the functions it describes are scrutinising and holding the Government to account. For me, however, the language of “scrutiny” is preferable to “influencing”. The measure of a Select Committee’s success should not be the sum total of its recommendations that the Government adopt. The core objectives of Select Committees, as first set out by the Modernisation Committee in 2002, have worked well, with an emphasis on their role in scrutinising the Government. However, the Liaison Committee was right to consider whether more streamlined objectives would be suitable. The proposed new guidance for Select Committees is sensible, although I note that it places a lot of weight on Select Committees in terms of their duties.

I agree with what the Liaison Committee says about how Select Committees can act as a public forum for ideas to be debated. I agree that this is an element of Select Committee work, but there are many routes for debates to take place in Parliament. It is not the primary purpose of Select Committee work to set off debates. I regret the fact that it has had to propose a compact between the Government and parliamentary Committees —again, a feature of the report we are debating—but sadly this appears necessary. The Government’s guidelines to Departments—the Osmotherly rules—state that

“departments should aim to respond to reports within two months”,

but as the Liaison Committee notes, responses frequently appear much later.

It says something about this Government that the Cabinet Office, which is supposed to be taking the lead on making government more efficient, took nine months to respond to the Liaison Committee’s report on “Select Committees and Public Appointments”, when we would have wanted it to lead a little more by example. When Government Departments finally get round to responding to Select Committee reports, the responses are often inadequate. In its evidence to the Liaison Committee, the Regulatory Policy Institute’s better government programme described the Government’s responses as “models of evasion”. Will the Leader of the House say something about what Ministers could do to respond to these criticisms from the Liaison Committee and perhaps to improve performance in the areas of timeliness and clarity of response?

There are many sensible recommendations in this report, and I do not intend to go through them all. I think that members of Select Committees will want to consider for themselves the many recommendations on how Committees can have a greater impact. I support the recommendation for Committees to experiment with different approaches, such as appointing rapporteurs to lead inquiries, commissioning external research and, perhaps more controversially, using special advisers to question witnesses on technical subjects. That can be seen in other Parliaments, and I certainly think that Committees could trial ideas in and around these areas.

I welcome the suggestion that Committees could make better use of the parliamentary website. Although, as right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, this has improved, it is still difficult for members of the public to navigate and its existence is poorly communicated. As we place more and more emphasis on the work of Committees, we should work harder to communicate their activities and ensure our constituents can readily access information about them. I welcome, too, the suggestion for substantive motions for debates on Committee reports. In its report, the Liaison Committee said that, subject to further discussion, it would explore ways to implement that.

On privilege, I note what the Committee has said. As it says in its report, a Joint Committee is considering this currently—or will be. I said earlier that there were occasions when a Joint Committee might bring benefits, and I look forward to the recommendations. I am not as certain as the Liaison Committee appears to be that there is no argument for changes in the area of privilege.

As I said at the start of my remarks, I welcome this report and many of its recommendations. Select Committees are an important part of the work of this House. I conclude by paying tribute to the work of all right hon. and hon. Members who serve on them and to the sterling work of House staff and all those who help make our Committee system effective.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Tuesday 29 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the HGV Road User Levy Bill.

Wednesday 30 January—General debate on Europe.

Thursday 31 January—Consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, followed by debate on a motion relating to the Liaison Committee’s report on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.



Friday 1 February—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 4 February—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 5 February—Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Wednesday 6 February—Opposition Day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 7 February—Debate on a motion relating to subsidies for new nuclear, followed by general debate on the closure of A and E departments. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 14 February will be:

Thursday 14 February—Debate on eating disorder awareness.

[Ms Eagle]

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

Yesterday’s Opposition day debate on the disgraceful blacklisting of trade unionists who raised safety concerns, along with other workers in the building sector, was very powerful. Members highlighted the devastating impact that the practice had on construction workers and their families across the country over many years. Although there is legal action by some of those affected, we still do not know the extent of the practice or who was involved, which is why we called in yesterday’s motion for a full inquiry to get at the truth. The Government did not oppose our motion yesterday, which we welcome, so could the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to make a statement quickly on what action Ministers will now take to stop this practice ever happening again?

This week the International Monetary Fund cut its growth forecast for the UK, and this morning its chief economist called for a reassessment of the Government’s fiscal policy. Moreover, December’s figures showed Government borrowing up 4% year on year. It is up because the Government’s economic strategy is failing, and it is hard-pressed families who are paying the price.

Yesterday in this House the Prime Minister was asked about food banks. The chief executive of the Trussell Trust said that his answer was “manipulating the numbers”. The number of people turning to food banks for support has increased by 90,000 since the election. This year it is expected that 250,000 people will need help from food banks to get by. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions obstinately refuse to visit a food bank to see for themselves the consequences of their failing economic strategy, so may we have a debate in Government time on food banks?

Ministers claim that the Government’s flagship energy efficiency programme, the green deal, will enable thousands of householders to take out a loan to make their homes more energy efficient. Having scrapped schemes introduced by the last Labour Government which helped to make thousands of homes more energy efficient, the Government have a new scheme, which has been months in preparation. Forty organisations are involved and 600 trained builders are on stand-by, ready to spring into action, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change admitted this week that just five households had benefited. The Federation of Master Builders had a simple explanation for this failing policy: it said that the Government had done too little, too late to promote the scheme. Given the recent freezing weather and the inevitable impact on people’s energy bills, could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the latest Government shambles?

Last week I warned that those on the increasingly fractious Government Front Bench were at risk of turning on each other. On cue, we had a petulant outburst from the Department for Education, when a Government source blasted the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a former Education Minister, as a

“lazy incompetent narcissist obsessed only with self-promotion.”

I am puzzled by who the DFE source could be. It could not have been a civil servant or a special adviser, because what happened is clearly against the special advisers code of conduct. Who does that leave? Could we have an urgent statement from the Education Secretary to clear the matter up?

The Leader of the House has announced a debate next week on Europe. Ahead of that debate, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether enabling legislation would be needed for a referendum to happen? Could he also confirm that the reason why there has been no Government statement on Europe is that the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday was not announcing Government policy? In next week’s debate, therefore, will the Foreign Secretary be speaking for the Government or the Conservative party?

The Leader of the House will recall that, a little over a year ago, he and I both voted against an in/out referendum. It is not immediately apparent what seismic events have occurred in European affairs to prompt Conservative Ministers to have a damascene conversion on this issue. Two Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries were fired for voting in favour of holding an in/out referendum. Will those Eurosceptic martyrs now be reinstated to Government? Will they be reinstated now that the Prime Minister has joined the headbangers in obsessing about Europe rather than tackling the effects of his failing economic policies?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her further questions. I was grateful to her and other Opposition Members for giving the House good notice of yesterday’s Opposition day debate on blacklisting, following our exchanges at business questions last week. That certainly assisted the debate, during which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) said that the evidence available to date did not merit a new inquiry, but that it would be a serious matter if new evidence came to light that those practices were continuing. He asked anyone with information about the practice continuing to get in touch with the relevant authorities. I echo that request.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about economic forecasts. Our forecast was set out in the autumn statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It was produced independently—something that was never done under the previous Government, who published their own manipulated forecasts. The International Monetary Fund has forecast that growth in the United Kingdom this year and next year will exceed that of the eurozone. So, notwithstanding the OBR’s statement that the crisis in the eurozone has been a “major drag” on performance in this country, given that that is our principal market, we are none the less able to expect higher growth than the eurozone.

We have discussed food banks at business questions, and I have said that I visited a food bank in Loughborough with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). The Prime Minister has also answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions on many occasions. I will simply reiterate that, on 9 January, the director of the UK food bank network said:

“I think the need has been there for a while. The growth in volunteers, and awareness about the fact you can get this help if you need it, help to explain the growth this year.”

The hon. Lady made no reference, of course, to the employment statistics that were published yesterday. They showed that employment is now at a record high, and that it increased last year by 552,000—the largest increase in one year since 1989. Time might not have permitted her to refer to the crime statistics published this morning, which show an 8% reduction in crime, year on year, to September 2012. That is extremely welcome.

The hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe. I fear that she did not explain what the policy of the Labour party was, however, but I think we know. The Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that Labour was opposed to an in/out referendum. So, as we discovered last week, the right hon. Gentleman believes that powers should come back to this country from Europe, but he has no mechanism by which he would seek to achieve that. He also has no basis on which to ask the British public for their consent to such a settlement. I am afraid that the Labour party has a problem. It has no interest in a new vision for Europe, such as the one the Prime Minister set out yesterday. That vision is attracting support right across Europe, including from the Finnish, Czech, Dutch and Danish Governments. They recognise that what is required is a more flexible, more competitive and more open Europe that is democratically accountable. As Leader of the House, I believe that what the Prime Minister said about the primacy of national Parliaments in securing democratic accountability was most important. But Labour has no vision for Europe, no trust in the British people and no support for democracy.

My final point is that the shadow Leader of the House might have a small problem with democracy. There was a local government by-election in her constituency in the Wirral. In that by-election, sadly occasioned by the death of the sitting member, in Leasowe and Morton East—a ward Labour won last year by a majority of 318—Ian Lewis, the Conservative candidate won by a majority of 265 votes. On the same day, in the neighbouring constituency of Wirral South, in a by-election in Heswall ward, the Conservative Kathryn Hodson overturned a Labour majority and won the seat, pushing the Labour party, which held the seat last year, into third place.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 21 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Wednesday 23 January—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 January—Debate on a motion relating to reducing the voting age, followed by general debate on the Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Tuesday 29 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by remaining stages of the HGV Road User Levy Bill.

Wednesday 30 January—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 31 January—Consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 1 February—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 31 January will be:

Thursday 31 January—Debate on the 30th anniversary of S4C, followed by debate on the military justice system.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business. May I also thank him for the written statement today on public reading stages for Bills?

We welcome the announcement that the House will debate, on a Back-Bench business motion, Holocaust memorial day. It is right that we remember the premeditated murder of millions of people, mostly Jews, during the holocaust.

We agree with the Government’s decision to provide logistical support for the French operation in Mali. The brutal rebel regime has been terrorising the civilian population. Its links with al-Qaeda pose a security threat. The killing of two oil workers in Algeria and the kidnapping of more than 20 of their colleagues shows that the threat from al-Qaeda remains serious. This is an extremely dangerous and, for the families, deeply worrying situation. We recognise that Ministers might be limited in what they can say in public until the situation is resolved, but will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the Government keep the House updated when it is appropriate to do so?

We are less than three weeks into the new year, and three major retailers have gone into administration. First Jessops, then this week HMV and Blockbuster. More than 10,000 retail jobs have gone or are at risk, impacting on communities across the country. The growth of online business has had a major impact on the structure of the retail economy, but the hollowing out of our high streets has a detrimental effect on local communities. The Government could support the change in the retail sector by ensuring that global online retailers paid their fair share of tax here in the UK. It has also been revealed this week that Ministers have been including unpaid work experience posts in their employment figures. So, while real jobs are disappearing on the high street, Ministers have spent their time conniving to boost artificially the employment figures. May we have an urgent statement on that from the Business Secretary?

Students at Stanford university were last week regaled by Mr Steve Hilton’s accounts of his time in No. 10. He told them:

“Very often you’ll wake up in the morning and hear on the…news”—

a Government announcement—

“…and you think…it’s not just that we didn’t know it was happening, but we don’t even agree with it!”

None of us was in the least surprised by that observation. After all, Mr Oliver Dowden, the deputy chief of staff at No. 10, said he was

“surprised on a day-to-day basis”

by his own Government’s announcements. The fact that the Government’s aides wander the world saying that No. 10 is a shambles does raise the question of who is responsible.

This week, we learned that Ministers have found someone new to blame: the civil service. The list of those the Government have blamed for their difficulties keeps on growing. We have had the weather—at different times, it has been too hot, too cold, too windy or too wet for the economy to grow. We have had Her Majesty, for having a diamond jubilee, we have had the Olympics for distracting us, and the Deputy Prime Minister has been blamed for just about everything. Next, they will be turning on each other. Oh—they are.

That brings me to Europe. The Prime Minister told The Sun in 2009 that

“if we win that election, we cannot afford to waste time having a row with Europe.”

Well, the Conservatives did not win the election, and they are having a row about Europe. The Prime Minister has decided that crossing the North sea to Holland will put sufficient distance between him and his Back Benchers to allow him safely to deliver his European speech. No doubt the Dutch people are eagerly anticipating his remarks, but will the Leader of the House suggest to the Prime Minister that he might choose to make a statement to this House?

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, we had questions but no answers, so perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us this: is it the Government’s intention that the UK will be a full member of the European Union in five years’ time? The Prime Minister refuses to answer, but Cabinet Ministers have been falling over each other to offer different answers. The Local Government Secretary said that he might vote to leave; the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), thinks the idea is barking; the Education Secretary thinks that it might be a good idea to leave; and the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that it would have a chilling effect on our economy. I can quite understand why the Foreign Secretary, witnessing all that, decided to go and spend some time in Australia. Given that we had two statements on Leveson, are we now going to have three on Europe: one by the Deputy Prime Minister, one by the Prime Minister, and one by rebel Tory Cabinet Ministers? There we have it: the Government are divided, the Prime Minister has lost control, and party management is trumping the national interest. It is Maastricht all over again.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her comments, and particularly for her welcome for the written ministerial statement on public reading stages. I also share her welcome for the Backbench Business Committee’s decision to timetable a debate on Holocaust memorial day. I am a supporter of the Holocaust Educational Trust and a member of its council, and I have been with students to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I know many Members have done. Holocaust memorial day is an occasion on which we can commemorate and understand the nature of that horror. It helps us to understand the applications of that genocide to the issues of today, and the horrors that man unfortunately still tends to visit on other members of mankind.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about Mali. She will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), made a statement on that matter earlier in the week. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that the House is updated on that issue, and, when it is appropriate to do so, on the events in Algeria. The Government condemn what has happened there. We are acting in concert with our allies in response. We send our condolences to the families of this and other countries’ nationals who have been killed and captured, but we will not rest from trying to recover those who have been kidnapped.

The hon. Lady asked about the high street, and she will recall the Portas review. The Government are supporting regeneration in the high street, but she and the House must understand completely that the Government cannot stand in the way of change in the economy—and changes are taking place, which will impact on high-street retailers. Some high-street retailers will succeed and prosper; others unfortunately will not. One of the key things that this Government have set out to do is always to try to ensure that we give the private sector an opportunity to grow. The evidence for that—the hon. Lady neglected to put it before the House—is the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the private sector since the general election. That is precisely what this Government are doing.

I was amused, but I was not much questioned by the shadow Leader of the House on some other issues. A former civil servant myself, I have seen press reports suggesting that the Prime Minister referred to “Yes Minister” as a documentary, but I am not aware that he did; I think I did in the House.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

Mr Speaker, may I wish you and the House a happy and peaceful new year?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 15 January—A motion to approve the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013.

Wednesday 16 January—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 January—A general debate on Atos work capability assessments, followed by a general debate on the nuclear deterrent. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 18 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 21 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Wednesday 23 January—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 January—Debate on a motion relating to reducing the voting age, followed by a general debate on the Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for those debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 January—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 24 January will be:

Thursday 24 January—Debate on the first report of the Justice Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.



May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to offer our congratulations to the Members of this House whose public service has been recognised in the new year honours? May I also say how pleased we are by the awarding of Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath to the Clerk of the House? That reflects his fine public service and leadership, and is a tribute to the House service as a whole.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, and may I join him in wishing you, Mr Speaker, all Members of this House and all the staff who work here a happy new year? I would also like to join him in his congratulations to those who were recognised in the new year’s honours list.

The ongoing disturbances in Northern Ireland concern Members from all parts of the House. More than 3,000 people were killed during the troubles. The peace process has brought to Northern Ireland hope and greater security, and has helped to attract much-needed investment. Those whose only aim is to bring down the peace process are exploiting events in Belfast, and we must not let a small minority undermine all that has been achieved since the Good Friday agreement. May I thank the Leader of the House for arranging a statement from the Northern Ireland Secretary following business questions? Will he undertake to ensure that she keeps the House regularly updated?

On Tuesday, the House considered the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, and there is more of it to come. The Government have refused to let the Bill have pre-legislative scrutiny and are intent on forcing it through the House in just one more day. Ministers are running scared of scrutiny because they do not want the facts to get in the way of their nasty little caricatures of those who rely on social security. The facts are that 7 million households affected by this legislation are in work; and the Government’s own impact assessment, published at the last minute on Tuesday, thus preventing Members from scrutinising it before the debate, shows that those who lose the most from these measures will be the poorest 10% of households. So can the Leader of the House explain why there is no pre-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, unlike almost all other bills this Session, and look again at the timetabling of this legislation?

Did the right hon. Gentleman find time this morning to tune into the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, gripping, radio show? No doubt, like all Conservative MPs, he has cleared his diary so as not to miss a broadcast. I am sorry to say that expectations were not high among Government Back Benchers, with the view of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) being:

“Having sat and listened to him at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, he has never answered a question yet so he isn’t likely to break the habit of a lifetime on radio.”

Having listened to the broadcast this morning—it was half an hour of my life that I will never get back—I have to report to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister did not break the habit. However, I have discovered that, strangely, although the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to do a London phone-in, yesterday he refused to appear on a Radio Sheffield show to answer questions about the impact of Government cuts in his own constituency. As the Deputy Prime Minister clearly has time on his hands, could the Leader of the House make a change to future business to accommodate a statement on why the Liberal Democrat leader is hiding from the people of Sheffield?

I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, who has decided to leave the Government because he is fed up of having to deal with the Liberal Democrats. If every Conservative Member who was fed up with the Liberal Democrats abandoned politics, the only Tory left in the Government would be the Prime Minister.

This week, the PR Prime Minister managed to bungle his own Government relaunch. First, two Ministers resigned because they had had enough of the coalition and then we had the shambles of the Government’s self-audit. Having put together a document allegedly auditing their first two and half years, Ministers realised, as the memo put it, that it had “problematic areas” that would lead to “unfavourable copy” as a result of identifying “broken” promises. On Monday at the relaunch, there was no audit. It is a unique interpretation of Government transparency first to decide against publishing a so-called audit, only to have to retrieve it from the waste paper bin after a bungling aide inadvertently revealed its existence to the media. I have had a look at what is actually in the document. There is no mention of the cost of living going up, nurse and police numbers going down and the economy flatlining. Who is the Prime Minister trying to kid? Seventy broken promises is just the start. It does not say Ronseal on this tin; it says whitewash.

There you have it, Mr Speaker, in one week: a botched relaunch, a cover-up and a whitewash. This just proves that with this Government an omnishambles is not just for Christmas.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. Perhaps it should fall to me to express our appreciation of Lord Strathclyde and his fabulous service over many years. He was leader of the Conservatives in the Lords for 14 years and Leader of the House since the election; he has an exemplary record of public service and we in this House, although we do not normally comment on matters in another place, have benefited many times from how he fostered co-operation between the two Houses. We should certainly thank him for that.

The shadow Leader of the House is right that it is the Government’s intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to keep the House fully informed. My right hon. Friend has made statements and she will do so again today. I share with the shadow Leader of the House the view that those engaging in violence in Northern Ireland are attacking the character and nature of Britain and the flag that represents the United Kingdom as a whole. As the Prime Minister rightly said in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, we should be working towards a shared future. There is a tremendous opportunity of which we have seen evidence in Northern Ireland and I hope the statement today will further reiterate this House’s support for those in Northern Ireland who are making that shared future a reality.

The hon. Lady asked about the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. It is a short, simple Bill and what it sets out to achieve is very clear. I do not see any case for pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill with such a character. More to the point, I think the debate the other day was not about scrutiny of the Bill but about differences of view about how to take forward deficit reduction. The Government recognise that it is a necessity, that everybody must play their part and that it was not acceptable for out-of-work benefits to continue to increase at twice the rate of increases for those who were earning. We are supporting those in work, giving them opportunities by reducing taxation. Some 24 million people have seen their tax bill come down as a consequence of the increase in the personal tax allowance and those on the minimum wage have seen their tax bill halved. That is the right way to go—it is about everyone participating in deficit reduction, but those who are most in need should get the greatest support.

I must confess to the shadow Leader of the House that I did not have an opportunity this morning to listen to LBC and the Deputy Prime Minister because I was preparing for questions in this House. However, I regularly attend and listen to the Deputy Prime Minister as he responds to questions in this House, as he did earlier this week. I thought he did so admirably.

Finally, the Government were always going to publish the audit. It is obvious that, compared with the previous Government, this Government have been transparent, clear and accountable both in what we have set out to do under the coalition programme and in what we have achieved, and 90% achievement in just over half of a Parliament is a record that we can be proud of.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will be:

Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by all stages of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure, followed by debate on a motion to take note of a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the gender balance on corporate boards, followed by general debate on corporate tax avoidance. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Wednesday 9 January—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the statutory code of practice for pub companies, followed by a further debate on a subject to be announced.

Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 10 January—General debate on dementia. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

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

Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 15 January—Motion to approve the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013.

Wednesday 16 January—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

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

Friday 18 January—Private Members’ Bills.

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

Thursday 10 January—Debate on the third report of the Select Committee on Transport on competition in the local bus market.

Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on International Development on tax in developing countries, followed by debate on the sixth report of the Select Committee on International Development on Afghanistan.

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? On behalf of the whole House, I should like to thank all the staff of the House who have kept the House and ourselves running smoothly: the Doorkeepers, the cleaners, the Clerks, the Officers and all the staff of the House and the House service. We wish a merry and peaceful Christmas to one and all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the next parliamentary week, even though it is not the next chronological week. I join the Leader of the House in wishing you, Mr Speaker, the staff who work here and have served us so well throughout the year, and all right hon. and hon. Members a happy and enjoyable Christmas.

Unfortunately, food banks had to feed almost 250,000 people this year. Independent figures from the Trussell Trust show that, in my own constituency, 295 children have been fed from food banks. Across the country, thousands of volunteers are helping hard-pressed families who are struggling to put any food on the table, and I pay tribute to their efforts. People are really struggling to make ends meet. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that in 21st century Britain people should not be struggling to feed their children because they have no money? At Christmas, that should be a particular source of shame, but yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister boasted that this showed the big society was working. How out of touch is he? When the coalition was formed, Ministers could barely complete a sentence without mentioning the big society. This year, as the idea has unravelled and been revealed to be little more than a PR gimmick, they have gone pretty quiet on the subject. May we have a debate on the big society, to give Government Members the chance to explain why, when 250,000 people have had to rely on food banks to be able to eat, the Government are giving a huge tax cut to a few thousand millionaires?

I welcome yesterday’s written statement from the Home Secretary on the Hillsborough investigation and the overturning of the unjust inquest verdicts on the 96 who died. I also warmly welcome the Government’s decision that the Hillsborough single will not be subject to VAT. I welcome the court’s decision this week, but it does mean that the families of the victims, who have fought so hard for so many years, will now have to meet expensive legal costs to ensure that they are adequately represented at the new inquests. Given the exceptional circumstances, will the Leader of the House ask the Justice Secretary to look at whether the Government could meet the families’ costs?

On Tuesday, Her Majesty the Queen made an historic visit to No. 10 to attend the Cabinet, to observe, not to participate in proceedings—much like the Deputy Prime Minister, in fact. Does the Leader of the House agree that it was a sign of Her Majesty’s tireless devotion to her duties that she was willing to put herself through such an experience? I have to admit that the photograph of the Cabinet meeting from the Evening Standard worried me. Where was the Leader of the House? I looked very carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman just was not there. What on earth is going on? I thought perhaps he was a closet republican, as he is from Cambridgeshire, but surely that cannot be the case. Then it occurred to me that perhaps the Prime Minister has simply had enough of him. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have now started a campaign to save him from the chop?

To honour Her Majesty’s Cabinet visit, the Government have very generously named a tract of Antarctic wilderness after her and given her 60 place mats—both of which will no doubt be very useful. As it is Christmas, I have been looking for gifts for the Cabinet. Given the miraculous resurrection of the Government Chief Whip’s ministerial career, I thought he might like a copy of the Australian ex-Prime Minister John Howard’s autobiography, “Lazarus Rising”. We would all be grateful if the Chancellor spent his Christmas reading “Macro-economics for Beginners”. Given that every announcement from the Department for Education inevitably finds its way into the media before the Education Secretary has had a chance to make a statement to this House, I think he would benefit from a copy of “How Parliament Works”, which is an excellent book. I thought you, Mr Speaker, might enjoy a manual written for classroom teachers, “Managing Very Challenging Behaviour”. The Leader of the House might benefit from a copy of the railway timetable, and just about all his ministerial colleagues might benefit from a copy of the book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), “How to be a Minister”.

Given that this is the last business statement of the year, and provided that the predictions of the Mayan apocalypse are wrong, I look forward to seeing everyone back in the new year.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, not least for her concern about my whereabouts at the Cabinet meeting. I felt like a reverse Forrest Gump: instead of being always in the picture, I was suddenly out of it. The hon. Lady’s reference to the railway timetable is correct. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) that I have an insufferable knowledge of Letchworth Garden City railway station, where I spent an hour and three quarters. If anyone were to ask me for a debate on recent failings in performance on the east coast main line or by First Capital Connect, I would be very sympathetic to that request.

The hon. Lady will recall that there was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on food banks in Scotland and, indeed, that reference was made to the subject at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions. I think the availability of food banks is an illustration of how we care for each other in our communities. We do not want people to need them, but as discussed in Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier, there are many reasons why people access them—including money problems, debt management, the ability to manage their resources and so forth. As the shadow Leader of the House says, the Trussell Trust has rightly been working across the country to establish better awareness of, and access to, food banks, and we should recognise and support that.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said about the Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement on a further investigation into Hillsborough and about what the Prime Minister said yesterday about VAT. She asked about legal aid. I can tell her and the House that the Government will provide funding for the legal representation of the bereaved Hillsborough families at the fresh inquests.

At Christmas time, we look back at the past year and forward to the next one. After a year in which we have had the diamond jubilee, the Olympics and the Paralympic games, 2012 will be a year to remember for many positive reasons. At this time, however, we also need to think about the people who might be looking on 2012 with less happy memories—people who are bereaved, people who are lonely, people who are in trouble or in pain and, indeed, people who are in poverty. There may not be such great events next year as there were this year, but I hope that in 2013 we will have many smaller positive events that will enable us as a country to live in greater peace and progress.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for an action-packed next week?

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.

Tuesday 18 December—Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the fund for European aid to the most deprived.

Wednesday 19 December—Second Reading of the Energy Bill.

Thursday 20 December—Launch of a report and announcement of a new inquiry by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, followed by the pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.

Provisional business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will include:

Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 20 March 2013.

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

Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the International Development Committee on tax in developing countries.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I welcome the fact that after months of prevarication the Government have decided to bring forward legislation on equal marriage. Does he join me in hoping that in debates that take place in this House, hon. Members will not resort to outrageous and offensive remarks such as those made by one Member who equated same-sex marriages with polygamy and incest? While welcoming the legislation, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to make it illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to hold same-sex marriages, even if they decide to do that in future. Although we would not want to force any church to conduct a same-sex wedding, the Government’s decision to make it illegal is wrong. Will the Culture Secretary look at that again and make a further statement?

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in coaxing the Culture Secretary to the House following the antics of her special adviser. The Opposition support a statutory underpinning of media regulation to protect the victims of press intrusion and guarantee freedom of the press. The Government seem to want to threaten the press with statutory underpinning to control the news agenda. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given the seriousness of events, the Prime Minister is thinking of giving back responsibility for media regulation to the Business Secretary?

This week, the European Union was awarded the Nobel peace prize. When the prize was announced, the Prime Minister said that he thought it should be presented to schoolchildren from across the EU. This week, he sent the Deputy Prime Minister to collect the award.

We also learned this week that the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted speech on the EU has been put off once again till the new year. The Prime Minister has repeatedly delayed a speech setting out the Government’s European policy no doubt because the Government have as many positions on Europe as there are Ministers. The Education Secretary would vote to leave the EU—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is an interesting Back-Bench response. The Policing Minister warns that Eurosceptics are fantasists. The Deputy Prime Minister thinks that repatriating powers is “a false promise”, but the Prime Minister thinks that it is a good idea.

It is obvious that the Government’s approach to the EU is mired in confusion and hesitation. The Prime Minister will be at the European summit today. Following recent precedent and given the multitude of positions within the Government, will the Leader of the House confirm that, after the summit, the House will be treated to statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than just the one?

Given that we are considering remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill next week, will the Leader of the House ask the part-time Chancellor to make a statement updating us on how the infrastructure measures announced in the Budget are going? The Government have a Growth and Infrastructure Bill, but, out in the real world, there is no growth and not enough infrastructure is being built. This PR Prime Minister’s solution is a rag-bag of measures to cover up the fact that the Government have no plan for growth. Given that, I wonder whether, in the next Queen’s Speech, we can look forward to a united coalition Bill; a big society success Bill; and a “We’re all in this together” Bill.

The Chancellor claimed in the autumn statement that his changes affected those

“living a life on benefits”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 877]—

who were still asleep when their neighbours go out to work. The Prime Minister refused to say so yesterday, so will the Leader of the House confirm that 60% of the people hit by the Chancellor’s real-terms cut in support payments are in work? The politics of divide and rule that the Chancellor practises is predicated on vicious, poisonous, nasty little caricatures. Can we therefore have a debate on whether the mother on maternity pay is a shirker; the father on the minimum wage getting tax credits is a shirker; the cleaner who gets up at 5 am is a shirker; and someone on sick pay recovering from an operation is a shirker? Those are the people who are hit by the Chancellor’s proposed cuts: people who are doing the right thing, and people who are trying to get on in life. At the same time, the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to their millionaire mates. So there we have it: the Government think that millionaires are the strivers while workers on the minimum wage are the shirkers.

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the terms in which he moved the motion. I am looking forward to the contributions to what I think will be a short and uncontroversial debate from fellow members of the House of the Commons Commission, including the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I look forward to what will probably be variations on a similar theme.

On behalf of the Opposition and, I believe, of all Members who intend to speak, I support the principle of the changes. Appointing lay members to the Committee on Standards was a suggestion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2009 in the aftermath of the expenses issues and scandals in the previous Parliament. The recommendation was aimed at further improving public confidence in the House’s ability to regulate itself, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said.

The subsequent Third Special Report on Standards and Privileges accepted the proposals and, on 12 March, the now Patronage Secretary and I, as shadow Leader of the House, took part in the debate that effected them by creating Standing Orders Nos. 148A and 149A, and modifying Standing Order No. 149. Since that time, the process of appointment has been thorough, as is usual with such procedures, and I have no doubt that the candidates for inclusion as lay members of the Committee, which, once we have made the decision, will split into two, are more than worthy of the roles. I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman OBE and Walter Rader OBE will bring a breadth of knowledge and experience that will be of benefit to the Committee.

The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which I am a member, also contains lay members, and their contribution is of great value. I look forward to having my suspicions confirmed that the work of the newly appointed members of the Committee on Standards will also be of great value.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will want to say something about how he sees the new arrangement working when the Committee splits at the beginning of next year, as he will be at the forefront of that work. I look forward to hearing the comments of other hon. Members too. The Opposition endorse the principle of the change, and look forward to the development of the Committee in its new form.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 10 December—Motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill.

Tuesday 11 December—General debate on the economy.

Wednesday 12 December—Opposition Day [12th allotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by general debate on the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 13 December—Motions relating to standards and privileges, followed by general debate on live animal exports and animal welfare. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 December will be:

Thursday 20 December—Debate on the interdepartmental ministerial group report on human trafficking.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business.

I have previously asked the predecessor of the Leader of the House about equal marriage legislation. Every piece of equality legislation since the decriminalisation of homosexuality was passed by the previous Labour Government. We fully support plans to introduce equal marriage. Couples planning their future need certainty from the Government, not prevarication. The Government’s legislative timetable is not exactly packed, so will the Leader of the House commit to bringing forward legislation in this Session?

We are grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging a debate on the Leveson report earlier this week. I congratulate Lord Justice Leveson on his report and his careful consideration of the evidence. The status quo is unacceptable; the victims of press intrusion deserve better. We welcome cross-party talks on how to implement the report, but there are clear divisions on the report between us and Conservative Front Benchers. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore commit to making available Government time for a vote on the proposals and, if there is a majority, time for the legislation that would follow?

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming to the House the new Labour Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Croydon North (Steve Reed)? I have been looking at by-election history. In 2008, there was a by-election in Henley in which the then governing party came fifth. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that showed that Labour was “finished”. In the Rotherham by-election, the Liberal Democrats managed to scrape into eighth place, behind Labour, the UK Independence party, the British National party, Respect, the Conservatives, the English Democrats and a local vicar. Can the Leader of the House say whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement on the outlook for his party after this debacle?

Yesterday we found out the full scale of the Government’s economic failure. The Prime Minister promised to balance the books by 2015, but he has broken that promise. The Chancellor promised to cut borrowing, but borrowing and debt figures have been revised up this year and for future years. The Government promised to grow the economy, but yesterday the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the economy would contract this year. The part-time Chancellor might try 4G Del Boy economics to hide his failure, but he cannot hide the truth. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this is the worst economic outlook since the 1920s. This is the consequence of a Government who got all the big decisions wrong. In October 2010, the Chancellor said:

“What investor is going to come to the UK when they fear a downgrade of our credit rating?”

He then claimed that the rating was safe in his hands, but this morning it is clear that the Chancellor’s economic failure has put his prized triple A rating at risk.

The measures announced in yesterday’s autumn statement will, according to the Treasury’s own figures, hit the poorest half of the country hardest. Those in work on modest earnings are paying the bill for this Government’s mismanagement of the economy, and at the same time the Government are giving a £100,000-a-year tax cut to the richest 8,000 people. How is that fair? We had an explanation yesterday in a Liberal Democrat briefing :

“The only tax cuts the Tories support are ones for the very rich”.

Helpful clarification was then offered by the Business Secretary, who said:

“We have a different view to the Conservatives…on fairness”.

Does the Leader of the House not think that a debate on fairness would give the Liberal Democrats the opportunity to remind themselves that they actually voted to give a tax cut to the richest 1%, and will he allow time for such a debate?

After yesterday’s autumn statement, we know that the Government are borrowing £212 billion more than expected, that the benefit bill is £13 billion higher, that growth forecasts have been cut this year, next year and for every year until 2016, and that the Government have failed the only economic tests they set themselves. This is the price of economic failure. For all the Chancellor’s sleight of hand yesterday, the Treasury’s own figures reveal that the economy has not grown, that borrowing is up, that growth will be less, that spending will be cut and that unemployment will go up. This is the record of a Government who have made the wrong choices. This is the consequence of an economic strategy that is not working.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

As the Leader of the House has just pointed out, the proceedings before us today are required under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. As I am sure Members in all parts of the House will recall, this is the statute which set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It requires that the board of IPSA consist of four ordinary members and a chair. The chair, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, was appointed for a fixed term of five years, which runs out in November 2014, but the board members all have appointments which expire on 10 January 2013, so it has been necessary to hold a selection process to find a successor board. It is the result of this process that the House is considering today.

Again as the Leader of the House pointed out in his remarks, the IPSA board has to meet certain very particular specifications. Under the Act, one board member must have held high judicial office, one must be eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor, and one must have served in the House of Commons. The appointments panel convened by the Speaker has done a very thorough job and come forward with four candidates who more than fulfil the statutory requirements of the 2009 Act. On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, may I endorse the candidates who have been selected and the scrupulously fair and independent process by which that was achieved?

It is only right that I endorse the thanks that the Leader of the House has already put on record to Dame Denise Platt, a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of IPSA, and to Dame Janet Gaymer, a former commissioner for public appointments and a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA, who sat on the appointments panel. I also join the Leader of the House in thanking those who assisted them in their considerations: the right hon. Sir Anthony May QC, who was nominated to the panel by the Lord Chief Justice; Martin Sinclair, who was nominated to the panel by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and Peter Atkinson, who was nominated by the Speaker.

It is crystal clear from the form of the appointments panel and those who assisted it that this was a scrupulously fair and independent process, and I hope that no one will seek to cast any aspersions on it at any time in the future. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for putting a few things straight in his remarks about the nature of this process and the reason for conducting it in that particular way. It is also sensible to put on record Sir Ian Kennedy’s evident satisfaction with both the process and the outcome of the appointments panel, despite his initial unhappiness.

I agree that the Speaker’s decision to stagger future appointments so that the board members’ terms of office do not all expire at the same time is sensible. It is an obvious improvement on the current arrangements, which I hope the House will endorse tonight.

IPSA needs to demonstrate its robust independence from both Parliament and the Government of the day. It needs to do this by the process and in the content of the decisions that it reaches. Part of IPSA’s job is to communicate and explain any decisions that it makes to the public and to defend Parliament as an institution from unfair criticism on costs and expenses, which are now clearly decided independently by IPSA.

It only remains for me to thank the outgoing members of the IPSA board for the work they have done, and to welcome their successors and wish them well in their job for the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask Sir Ian Kennedy to respond to that point, too. I confess that I do not know whether the board has met since July, but he will no doubt be able to better inform my hon. Friend.

I have known Sir Ian Kennedy over a number of years—less in the IPSA context than in his previous role as chair of the Healthcare Commission; I knew him in his capacity in that role—and think that on 22 November he probably understated his knowledge of Members of Parliament and what they do in this place. He probably regrets that, but I know from my conversations with him that he regards knowledge of the role of MPs and their activities and important work as important. He also believes it important not only for IPSA to recognise that fully in what it does, but for the public to recognise it as part of an understanding of how IPSA goes about its work and makes its decisions.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does the Leader of the House agree that Sir Ian has been taken aback by the lack of understanding among the public of the role of Members in this House? It may be that he misspoke on the radio and attributed to himself the understanding that he had picked up from the public consultation, which is that many members of the public know about Prime Minister’s questions, but not the detail of what else we do in this House. I expect that that is what he meant.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Sir Ian may well have been reflecting the public’s perception. They understand much more about what we do as constituency Members of Parliament and, frankly, they value it more. I know from conversations with Sir Ian that that is something that he, as well as we in this House, hopes to remedy. One of the substantial number of criteria in the person and role specification that was agreed between Mr Speaker and Ian Kennedy, which would have been reflected in the panel’s judgments, was a candidate’s understanding and awareness of the role of Members of Parliament.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 3 December—General debate on the Leveson inquiry.

Tuesday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by motion relating to the appointment of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority board members.

Wednesday 5 December—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill.

Thursday 6 December—A debate on a motion relating to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, followed by general debate on defence personnel.

The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 December will include:

Monday 10 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill.



Tuesday 11 December—General debate on public expenditure.

Wednesday 12 December—Opposition day (12th allotted day, first part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 13 December—Motions relating to standards and privileges, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ms Eagle]

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

The flooding across England and Wales this week has caused widespread chaos and, sadly, a number of deaths. I would like to add my tribute on the work of the emergency services and all those involved in providing assistance to those affected.

The increasing frequency of serious weather affecting the UK underlines the importance of robust flood defences, yet spending on flood defences has been cut by a quarter, delaying much-needed schemes. Even the Government’s own advisory Committee on Climate Change warned in July that Ministers are not doing enough, and now hundreds of thousands of people risk being unable to obtain insurance because the Government have not reached an agreement with the industry. We welcome the statement earlier in the week from the Environment Secretary, but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on measures to protect people across the UK from flooding, especially in light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report published today?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging a statement by the Foreign Secretary on Palestinian statehood —something I asked for last week. At business questions last week I also raised the matter of the Liberal Democrat party member who masqueraded as an independent in the police and crime commissioner elections. I asked for an urgent statement, but unfortunately the Leader of the House has not been able to find time for one. I wonder whether he will reconsider, however, because I have managed to get hold of a letter put out by the Liberal Democrat candidate standing in today’s Middlesbrough by-election. In it he says,

“things seem to be getting worse, not better.”

I have read the letter very carefully, but, by some strange omission, nowhere does it mention that the Liberal Democrats have been in government for the last two and a half years, so will the Leader of the House now find time for a statement on cynical electoral subterfuge?

We are all looking forward to the publication of the Leveson report later today. During business questions on 28 June, I asked:

“Will the Leader of the House arrange in future business for Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers to share the speaking time to give both parties ample opportunity to differentiate themselves?”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 448.]

I must confess that I meant that suggestion to be parody, but yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister made a request to have a separate statement from the Prime Minister on the Leveson report and I see today that that has been granted. What on earth is happening to collective responsibility? I notice that the play “Yes, Prime Minister” is leaving the Trafalgar theatre to go on a UK tour, but with this Government in office there will at least still be one farce running in Whitehall.

The Government have been struggling to get their legislation through the House of Lords. This Government’s peers easily outnumber Opposition peers, yet for the entire duration of the Labour Government our peers never made up more than 29% of the total. May I say to the Leader of the House that the problem the Government have is not with the quantity of their peers, it is with the quality of their legislation?

There have been reports in the media that the Prime Minister is planning to create 100 additional peers, despite the fact that the House of Lords is already the second biggest legislature in the world—after the equally democratic Chinese National People’s Congress. Filling the House of Lords might be the only successful job creation scheme this Government have come up with, but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent statement on the seemingly inexorable expansion of the second Chamber?

Word reaches me that this week’s Cabinet meeting was even more fractious than usual. Apparently, the Chancellor blamed the Culture Secretary for failing to deliver on the Government’s promise to roll out superfast broadband and the Culture Secretary blamed her predecessor, with her aides saying that she had done more in two months than the current Health Secretary had managed in two years. Astonishingly, the welfare Minister, Lord Freud, blamed the Chancellor for the abject failure of the Work programme and the Prime Minister blamed the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for the failure of enterprise zones. While Cabinet members bicker, we have a broadband network that is not connected, a job scheme that is not working and enterprise zones where there is no enterprise, while the only growth strategy they have is for the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister called himself the “heir to Blair”, but is he not just the natural successor to Jim Hacker?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks about the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Palestine. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services and the work of Environment Agency staff in supporting communities that have been so heavily damaged by flooding. I have personal knowledge of the area around Exeter and of St Asaph in north Wales; these are dreadful events for people to have to live through.

It is terrifically important that we protect people wherever we can. That is why the Government are allocating £2.17 billion over four years. The hon. Lady will have heard the Prime Minister say yesterday, in response to questions, that we hope to leverage additional support for flood defences. She will also know from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that we continue to be in discussions with the Association of British Insurers about securing protection for householders through insurance as well. I will, of course, continue to keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how the House can be kept informed on these matters.

I am trying to think of anything else that the hon. Lady asked for that could be considered business of the House, but there was not much. She commented on press reports about what happened at Cabinet, but today of all days she might recognise that we should not believe everything we read in the newspapers.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister being an “heir to Blair”, and she talked about the appointment of peers in another place, but my recollection is that Tony Blair made 374 peers. By that standard, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been notably reticent.

We in the House, including Opposition Members who have been in government, know that “Yes Minister”, when it was broadcast by the BBC and even today, is, in fact, a documentary programme and not a work of fiction. I am somewhat unusual in this place in having been not only my own version of Jim Hacker, but Bernard in a former life. The one thing I am not expecting to be is a Sir Humphrey at any stage. If at any point we can illustrate “Yes Minister”, I am sure we will set out to do so.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for talking about growth and welfare. Yesterday we had a debate about those issues. I looked at reports of past business questions for a request for an Opposition day debate on employment. Yesterday, the Opposition did talk about jobs but not about how to create them. They did not have a policy for that—it was a policy-free zone from the Labour party yesterday. What a missed opportunity. The Labour party had an opportunity to use its time to celebrate the 70-year anniversary of the Beveridge report. We could have celebrated the sense of how work is a route out of poverty and want, and how social solidarity through welfare provision is properly a way in which we can build a stronger society, as the Government are setting out to do. We could also have celebrated the contribution made by a Liberal as part of a coalition Government under a Conservative Prime Minister for the long-term benefit of this country.