Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

We have had an important debate about ministerial conduct and how we protect the rights of this House in holding Ministers to account. We heard powerful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). On the Government Benches, we heard from the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and from the hon. Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), all of whom said that there are questions to answer, particularly to do with who should be allowed to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct.

This is a debate that Labour Members should not have had to initiate. In that regard, I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. There is already a perfectly good system to make sure that Ministers abide by the rules in their conduct of Government business and in ensuring that Parliament is told the truth, and it is called the ministerial code, an updated version of which is produced at the beginning of every new Parliament. An independent adviser on the code is available to offer advice to Ministers on their interests and to investigate any alleged breaches. It is for the Prime Minister to be the guardian of the code and to refer any alleged breaches to the independent adviser for investigation.

It is a clear and simple process, but what has happened in this case? I have read the ministerial code carefully, and I cannot find a clause that says, “This code applies to all members of the Government but the Prime Minister’s chums.” Will the Government be bringing out a new version to reflect this reality? Writing in the foreword of the most recent edition of the code, the Prime Minister said:

“Our new government has a particular and historic responsibility: to rebuild confidence in our political system…People have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.”

The Prime Minister talks the talk but he does not walk the walk.

[Mr Jenkin]

Following the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), my Liberal Democrat colleague on the Public Administration Committee, will the hon. Lady commit her party to supporting our recommendation that the independent adviser should be able to instigate his own investigations?

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done this House a great service in publishing the report that is tagged with this debate. I think that situations have evolved since decisions were taken in the past. I certainly think that the suggestion that the independent adviser should be allowed to initiate investigations needs a fresh look in the light of the circumstances that have arisen. I, for one, have an open mind on that. He raises a very important subject that the House should debate. The Committee’s work on this is invaluable in the changing circumstances, and I look forward to its continuing.

The Prime Minister’s decision not to ask the independent adviser on ministerial interests to investigate the Culture Secretary totally contradicts the commitment that he gave in his own foreword to his own code. It also totally disregards clear, prima facie evidence that the code has been breached and that there are good grounds for an investigation. That prima facie case was set out very powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and hinted at in slightly shyer terms by the right hon. Member for Bath.

It took the Prime Minister 20 minutes from the conclusion of the Culture Secretary’s oral evidence to the Leveson inquiry to announce that there was no case to answer, but the Prime Minister was not considering the evidence, he was not interested in protecting the integrity of his Government, and he disregarded the need for Ministers to be straight with Parliament. That is a very important matter for the House. All he wanted to do was to protect his chum.

To their credit, the Liberal Democrats have decided that they cannot go along with the Prime Minister’s cynical charade. Good for them, but I struggle to see why they should not join us in the Lobby for the vote. They should be in the Lobby with us, upholding the integrity of the ministerial code and supporting our call for the Culture Secretary to be referred to the independent adviser. It is not too late. The right hon. Member for Bath said there were still questions for the Minister to answer, but he did not go into detail on what they were. Liberal Democrat Members have said that they believe a referral to the independent adviser is in order, and I hope that even at this late hour they will reconsider their position and decide to join us in the Division Lobby to send a powerful message to the Prime Minister that the House will not stand by and tolerate being lied to and the ministerial code being an optional extra.

The integrity of the Government’s relations with Parliament is at stake. We have an independent adviser on the ministerial code who was appointed on a not inconsiderable retainer of £20,000 per annum. He has been in place since November 2011 but the Prime Minister seems extraordinarily reluctant to call on his services. The Prime Minister blocked Sir Alex’s predecessor from investigating the former Defence Secretary. He now blocks Sir Alex from investigating the Culture Secretary.

Ministers have recently taken to telling the country that we all need to be working harder, but we have a ministerial adviser champing at the bit to launch an investigation, and the Prime Minister keeping him locked in a cupboard. What are we paying the independent adviser for? This something-for-nothing culture needs to end. Let the independent adviser do his job. What does the Prime Minister have to fear?

We heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how even a perfunctory look at the facts demonstrates that the Culture Secretary has a case to answer. Paragraph 1.2c of the ministerial code requires Ministers to

“give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.

The Secretary of State told the House on 25 April:

“I made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 973.]

Yet it turns out that the Culture Secretary was firing off memos to the Prime Minister backing the bid, and wanted a meeting with the Business Secretary to lobby him. I do not know what the Culture Secretary’s definition of “intervention” is, but it is not one that would be found in any English dictionary.

In his parliamentary statement in April the Secretary of State told the House that

“the contact that I had with Fred Michel was only at official meetings that were minuted with other people present”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 961]—

and that he had—I quote exactly—“zero” conversations with Michel. Yet it has now been revealed that he texted Michel directly when he had responsibility for overseeing the bid. In the Culture Secretary's “dictionary of convenient definitions” it appears that neither “contact” nor “conversations” mean text messages.

The Secretary of State assured Parliament on 3 March 2011 that he had published

“all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]

He had published all the documents, all the meetings, all the contacts except the 191 phone calls with News Corporation, the 158 e-mails with News Corporation, and the 799 text messages with News Corporation. What on earth does the Culture Secretary think “all” means?

We know that the Secretary of State is a keen dancer. Indeed, we have one of his Cabinet colleagues to thank for telling us that he has installed a sprung floor in his home, so that he can practise his “Strictly Come Dancing” routines. However, it is dancing on the head of a pin to claim that he did not intervene, that he was not in contact and that he had published all the evidence.

Parliament deserves better than this. It is crystal clear that the Secretary of State’s former special adviser effectively opened an improper back channel of direct communication with News Corporation. If the special adviser had gone rogue, one would have thought that on uncovering his activities the Culture Secretary would have fired him immediately. But no, the Culture Secretary first told his special adviser that he had done nothing wrong. The next day—I suspect after looking at the front pages—he told his special adviser,

“Everyone here thinks you need to go”,

before apparently adding that “everyone” did not necessarily include him.

Why has Adam Smith resigned when the Secretary of State feels that he himself has no case to answer? Is he expecting us to believe that he had no idea what his special adviser was up to in such a key area of policy, in which he had shown such prior interest? Paragraph 3.3 of the code makes it clear that Ministers must take responsibility for the actions of their special advisers. The Secretary of State must accept his responsibility.

We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had not intervened when he had. We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had had no contact with News Corporation lobbyists when he had. We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had published all the documents when he had not. The Prime Minister knows all that, but he says that there is nothing for the adviser on the ministerial code to investigate. Who is he kidding? He cannot even persuade the Deputy Prime Minister of that fact.

Today, the House has an opportunity to make it clear that the ministerial code matters, that Ministers are accountable to this House and that the public can expect the highest standards from Ministers. The motion calls merely for Sir Alex Allan to investigate and for the existing system of ministerial accountability to this House to be used, rather than abused. I commend it to the House.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of House please give us next week’s business?

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

Next week’s business would not take very long, but the business for the week commencing 11 June will be:

Monday 11 June—Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Tuesday 12 June—Second Reading of the Defamation Bill, followed by motion on a European document relating to the proceeds of crime.

Wednesday 13 June—Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 14 June—There will be a debate on mental health. The subject for this debate was previously suggested by the Backbench Business Committee.

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

Thursday 14 June—Debate on piracy off the coast of Somalia.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Twenty four years ago today, Parliament passed legislation introducing section 28 into law. It was a nasty, discriminatory law that caused a lot of bullying and misery. After a fierce three-year battle, in the teeth of Tory opposition, we repealed it in government. Last week, I asked the right hon. Gentleman about the Government’s position on equal marriage. In reply, he spoke eloquently about the importance of equality, but by an unfortunate oversight—I am sure it was an oversight—he omitted to answer my question. This morning, the Government’s position has become clear. Lacking the courage of the Prime Minister’s convictions and threatened with a growing revolt in the Cabinet, they have decided to grant those opposed to equal marriage a free vote, meaning that the Government’s flagship policy on equal rights will become law only with Labour support. Will he arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to say when legislation will be introduced, because there was no sign of it in the Queen’s Speech?

The Prime Minister was no doubt delighted to receive from Steve Hilton his leaving gift, a copy of the Beecroft report, which is the worst attack on workplace protection in a generation. His gratitude was clearly short lived, because only a few days later No. 10 was briefing The Daily Telegraph:

“No one really has any idea what went on with this report, it was very much Steve Hilton’s project. The whole thing is a bit dodgy and we wish it had never happened”.

Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers have spent the last few days fighting over it, and the shambles has continued with the report’s author attacking the Business Secretary by calling him a “socialist”. Only a hedge fund boss and Tory donor could call someone who voted for a tax cut for the richest 1% a socialist. Where was the Business Secretary today, by the way? He was in Berlin. Will the Leader of the House prevent Secretaries of State from being out of the country when there are questions to answer in the House? It is perfectly reasonable for them to arrange their trips at other times of the week.

Yesterday, the Government published the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. The Leader of the House announced a moment ago that the Bill will be the first thing we consider on our return. The Bill contains a small section on employment law. Will he reassure the House that the Government will not bring forward amendments to the Bill to implement more of the Beecroft report?

The senior Liberal Democrat BackBencher, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), introduced a petition this week opposing the Government’s decision to impose a caravan tax. I thought I must have missed him in the Division Lobby when the Opposition tried to prevent the Government from introducing this unfair tax, but according to Hansard he voted for it. The Liberal Democrats voted for the pasty tax and pretended to oppose it in their constituencies, and now they campaign against the caravan tax, which they voted for. Is there any bit of this bungled Budget that they are prepared to support in their constituencies?

These Liberal Democrat tactics are clearly infectious, because four Conservative Back Benchers have started doing the same thing: they have introduced petitions opposing the caravan tax that they voted for. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a statement to remind his Back Benchers that if they want to campaign in their constituencies against Government policy, they should at least vote against it when the matter is before this House? People are beginning to notice.

Ministers have recently been complaining that the country has not been working hard enough. We have to wonder what planet they are on. Families up and down the country are struggling to make ends meet, worried about job security, worried about how they will afford rising fuel and food bills, and angry that the Government are doing nothing to help. Can the Leader of the House confirm that when Ministers complain that the country needs to work harder, they are in fact thinking about the Prime Minister? We learn this week that his aides say that he spends

“a crazy, scary amount of time playing Fruit Ninja”.

We have a Chancellor who is trying to do two jobs—both badly—while the Prime Minister fills his time slicing fruit on his iPad.

On a day when the Office for National Statistics has announced that the double-dip recession is worse than we thought, Liberal Democrats and Conservative Ministers are slugging it out in public. The Conservative party is fighting among itself on equal marriage and House of Lords reform. Government Back Benchers are denouncing in their constituencies the measures that they voted for in Parliament. Does the Leader of the House not think that instead of losing his temper and ranting at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister should just get a grip?

[Sir George Young]

I wait patiently for questions about next week’s business, but they are pretty hard to find. Let me go through the issues that the hon. Lady touched on.

The Government are consulting on equal marriage, which the Labour party did not consult on, or indeed do anything about, when it was in government for 13 years. The consultation is under way; it has not finished. Along with other issues that involve matters of conscience, it seems to me perfectly proper that this matter should be subject to a free vote on this side of the House, and that is what we plan to do.

We had a statement on Beecroft on Monday. We have also had BIS questions, a large chunk of which were all about Beecroft, and I am not sure that the Leader of the House can usefully add to what has already been said.

The hon. Lady asked about the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been published. The Bill, which will be debated when we come back, sets out the Government’s proposals on the subject. Of course the Government will listen to the House if it proposes amendments to the Bill. For her to ask me to rule out any Government amendments is to say that we should be denied the opportunity of listening to the views of the House, including those of Opposition Members, so of course we will be in listening mode on that issue.

On VAT on static caravans, the Chancellor announced a number of measures in the Budget to address anomalies and loopholes. We extended the consultation period on the measures to 18 May, and we are now considering the consultation responses, including the petitions that hon. Members have presented to the House. The Government will respond on the issue of static caravans later in the summer.

On not supporting in the Division Lobbies that which Members may have supported in early-day motions, I would just remind the hon. Lady of the incident with the post office closures in the last Parliament. We tabled a motion that very closely resembled early-day motions that had been signed by Government Members, and then, miraculously, they were not in the Lobby when the Division was called. I therefore think she needs to be cautious about that.

As for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s temper, I am amazed that the hon. Lady has the audacity to raise that, in the light of the somewhat irrational behaviour at times of the previous Prime Minister.

Privilege

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of the Leader of the House by paying tribute to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for its significant work on the ongoing, complex and important matter of News International and phone hacking. Throughout its long inquiry, the Committee has been chaired admirably by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and his Committee has pursued its inquiries in a commendable and dogged fashion. Just as the Treasury Select Committee pursued its inquiries into the banking crisis, so the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has pursued its investigations into the media crisis. I know the work has been exhaustive and exhausting for the members of the Committee, past and present, and the House staff supporting them, and once more I pay tribute to all involved.

Members will be well aware of the context of this report, which the hon. Member for Maldon has just set out. The Committee’s inquiry began in the last Parliament and has taken place against a background of rapid external developments. Despite the challenges, it is a tribute to the Committee that it has produced its report in spite of the ongoing police investigation and the Leveson inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry, which we expect to report in the autumn, will be of great importance. We are inevitably constrained in what we can say today, given the context, but the House will have further opportunities to debate the wider issues. The motion before us is therefore a narrow one, as the Leader of the House has just told us.

From their introduction in 1979, Select Committees have had the power to send for persons, papers and records. They have relied largely on written and oral evidence to perform their duties. Over more than two decades, and during hundreds and hundreds of separate inquiries, Select Committees have ably and satisfactorily used mainly informal powers to ensure that they can access the evidence they need. However, we should not forget the purpose of such inquiries: Select Committees exist not just to hold the Government to account and to examine in detail the implication of Government bodies and policies, but to shine a light across the public realm. The powers of the House are for a purpose: to enable Parliament, on behalf of our constituents, to hold the powerful to account. Today the Select Committee system works well, but it would not if witnesses felt they could mislead a Committee without consequence.

Although Committees rarely take evidence on oath, the House of Commons 2011 guidance for witnesses giving evidence to Select Committees is clear. It states that witnesses are expected to answer fully, honestly and truthfully, and:

“Deliberately attempting to mislead a committee is a contempt of the House”.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee concludes, at paragraphs 274 to 280, that three individuals—Les Hinton, Tom Crone and Colin Myler—and, corporately, News International and the News of the World misled Parliament in their evidence to the Committee. Under these circumstances, it is right that the matter be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee for further investigation and consideration. We should not seek to pre-judge or second-guess the work that the Standards and Privileges Committee may undertake, under the able chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). It is enough that we agree today to refer this important matter to that Committee, which is why the Opposition support the motion.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 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 (Sir George Young)]

The business for next week will be:

Monday 21 May—Remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill.

Tuesday 22 May—Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill, followed by Third Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Wednesday 23 May—Second Reading of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by a European document relating to the proceeds of crime.

Thursday 24 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his announcement of next week’s business, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her re-election unopposed to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

Analysis of last week's Queen’s Speech has demonstrated that this Government have already run out of ideas. Of the 19 announced Bills, three are carry-overs from the previous Session, and now we learn that the passage of as many as five of the new Bills might be delayed until the next Session, making this by far the slimmest Queen’s Speech in living memory. Will the Leader of the House tell us why?

Today is the international day against homophobia and transphobia, and it is right that we mark it in this House. There are five countries where people can be sentenced to death for being lesbian or gay, and 76 where it is still illegal. We should pay tribute to all those who are bravely campaigning for equality around the world.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Equalities Minister to make a statement on the Government's proposals for equal marriage? This weekend, the Defence Secretary said that it was “not a priority”, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), said that he is “totally opposed”, but across the country there are couples who want to know whether to have a civil partnership, or to wait until the law is changed. What they do not want is to be in limbo while Conservative MPs fight among themselves and the Government prevaricate. The Prime Minister has said it is an important matter of equality. I agree. Will the Government now commit quickly to introducing legislation on equal marriage?

The whole House will be concerned about the eurozone crisis. On Monday, the Chancellor said

“the open speculation from some members in the eurozone about the future of some countries in the eurozone…is doing real damage across the whole European economy”—

only for the Prime Minister to indulge in precisely that speculation two days later. The Government’s plan A has pushed us back into recession. It has failed in Britain and it is now failing across Europe. Instead of manoeuvring to blame Europe for his failed economic policy, the Prime Minister should be pushing for a solution to the eurozone crisis.

At the election, Government Members promised not to cut front-line services, but that is exactly what the Home Secretary has done. More than 5,000 police officer jobs have been cut. When she spoke to the Police Federation conference yesterday, the right hon. Lady insisted the podium be shifted, because she did not want to be filmed in front of a conference slogan opposing police cuts. She can shift the podium and the camera angle, but she cannot shift the responsibility. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement on police numbers so that she can explain what happened to their manifesto promise not to cut front-line staff?

While the Home Secretary is at it, she could also explain the ongoing immigration shambles at Heathrow. Every week we hear reports of thousands of people stuck at immigration and passengers queuing for hours while immigration desks are closed. It takes something when even Joan Collins feels the need to tweet from the queue that the Home Secretary should get a grip. And it is not just the Home Secretary; the Immigration Minister’s justification for the shambles at Heathrow’s border control was that it was the result of the wrong type of wind. What is it about this Government and the weather? First they blamed the economy’s performance on the snow, then the excuse was the wrong type of rain, and now we have the wrong type of wind. May we have a statement on the ministerial code? Does the Leader of the House intend to amend the code to say that Ministers are responsible unless they can blame the weather or, perhaps, their special advisers?

At Justice questions this week neither the Secretary of State nor his deputy were present. The ministerial code states that Ministers are accountable to this House, so they should at least turn up for departmental questions rather than leaving it to junior Ministers and Whips to do their work for them. Will the Leader of the House undertake to make sure that senior Ministers are present for oral questions in future?

Justice Ministers dodge their responsibilities to the House, the Home Secretary refuses to take responsibility for her police cuts, the Immigration Minister refuses to take responsibility for the shambles at Heathrow and the Chancellor refuses to take responsibility for a double-dip recession made in Downing street. What a way to start the new parliamentary Session.

[Sir George Young]

May I begin in a conciliatory way by congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion to the chair of her party’s national policy forum? We hope that she can do that without becoming a part-time shadow Leader of the House. I know that she will bear in mind what her leader said on 10 January:

“in these times, with less money, spending more on one thing means finding the money from somewhere else.”

That is something her colleagues seem to have forgotten. Her previous job was shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so she will want to bring some financial discipline to her party’s policies if they are to have any credibility with the electorate.

The hon. Lady asserted that there were not enough Bills in the Queen’s Speech. If she looks at earlier Queen’s Speeches, she will find that the number of Bills introduced in this Session is not dissimilar to the number introduced in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Sessions. She will also find that three Bills are being carried over from the previous Session. We are not going to do what the previous Government did, which was to bring so much legislation to the House that they were unable to process it properly. As I have said before, the House is not simply a legislation factory. We are not going to make their mistake of imposing too many ill-considered and ill-drafted Bills on the House.

The hon. Lady mentioned that today is a day to celebrate equality. Had Mr Speaker been in the Chair, I would have commended the article he wrote for today’s copy of The Independent. Today is international day against homophobia and transphobia. The Government are strongly committed to advancing equality and want to ensure that public services are accessible to all and free from discrimination. She will know that we have lifted the ban on civil partnerships taking place on religious premises and are currently consulting on how to implement equal civil marriage. We are continuing to remove barriers and tackle prejudice.

On the economy, the hon. Lady will know that we are about to debate economic matters on an amendment tabled by the Opposition, but I have to say that her policies would increase this country’s debt and provide no solution to its problems whatsoever.

On policing, I remind the hon. Lady that before the election the then Home Secretary was asked whether he could guarantee police numbers, and he said “No.” I remind her also that the Labour party has now endorsed cuts of £2.1 billion to the police budget, and the official Association of Chief Police Officers response, from Chief Constable Peter Fahy, stated that

“the effectiveness of policing cannot be measured by the number of officers alone but by reductions in crime and increases in public confidence.”

It is an inconvenient truth for the hon. Lady that, although she might suggest that crime is going up, official figures show that police-recorded crime has fallen by 3%.

Turning to immigration, I note that we inherited a shambles at the UK Border Agency, which we are putting right. The hon. Lady will welcome the Immigration Minister’s announcement before the Home Affairs Committee of an additional mobile unit at Heathrow to cope with the delays to which she refers.

I am astonished that the hon. Lady mentions the absence of the Lord Chancellor from oral questions. She was a Minister herself, and she will know that occasionally Ministers have responsibilities other than in the House. The Lord Chancellor, in line with precedent, wrote to Mr Speaker and to the shadow Lord Chancellor to explain that he would not be at oral questions but at an international legal forum in Russia. I am sure that he would have preferred to have been here, because he enjoys his time at the Dispatch Box, but I commend the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who was an understudy for the Lord Chancellor and not only kept the balls away from the wicket but swept many of them to the boundary.

Finally, I say to the hon. Lady that it is a fortnight since the Labour party candidate was defeated in the election for Mayor of London, and less than two months since the hon. Lady’s party lost Bradford West, so any triumphalism on her part is very premature.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Following the brief—sorry. Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

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

We got there in the end.

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

Monday 14 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be business and the economy.

Tuesday 15 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be foreign affairs and international development.

Wednesday 16 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be the cost of living.

Thursday 17 May—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be jobs and growth.

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

Monday 21 May—Remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill.

Tuesday 22 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill (Day 2), followed by Third Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Wednesday 23 May—Second Reading of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by a European document relating to the proceeds of crime.

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

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

Thursday 24 May—Debate on the operations of the family courts.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and apologise for my slightly unfocused beginning; I was lost in admiration for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) has done as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and rather wondering whether, and hoping that, she would consider standing again.

Following the brief announcement yesterday of the Government’s legislative programme, the Deputy Prime Minister said in a letter to his party activists that it showed that

“Liberal Democrats are punching above their weight”.

At last, we have an acknowledgement from them—that they are in the political lightweight division. After all, this is a party that was beaten at the polls last week by a man dressed as a penguin.

The Deputy Prime Minister added in desperation that the Queen’s Speech

“has a firm Liberal Democrat stamp on it”—

and he was right. It had nothing to say on the economy; nothing to say on getting people back to work; nothing to help hard-pressed families. All that Liberal Democrats want to do is sit around and debate House of Lords reform. The Leader of the House has announced six days of debate on the Government's packed legislative programme. Will he find time for a debate about how the Liberal Democrats are punching above their weight?

Will the Leader of the House find time also for the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), to participate in that debate? After all, he said of the Government last year:

“We don’t know what we’re doing”

after 2011, and

“we’ve run out of ideas”.

Will the Leader of the House coax the right hon. Gentleman out of whatever cupboard they have put him in and get him to the Chamber so that we can congratulate him on being correct?

Before the Queen’s Speech the Conservative Chair of the Public Administration Committee said that the Government lacked a compelling vision. Today it is clear: the problem is not that they lack a compelling vision, but that they lack any vision at all. The Leader of the House was unable to find time for a debate on the Committee’s report before the Queen’s Speech. Will he now finally do so?

While his economic plan is failing, the part-time Chancellor is focused on his other job of managing the Conservatives’ election strategy. As Thursday’s local elections showed, that is going very well. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the new Chipping Norton set of Labour councillors elected in the Prime Minister’s constituency last Thursday? They join more than 800 other new Labour councillors elected up and down the country.

After last week’s polls, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to listen. Why does he not meet his new Labour councillors, who will be able to tell this out-of-touch Prime Minister what the electorate are really saying? He will not even have to ban photographs of that meeting. On that very point, we learned this week that the Prime Minister arranged to meet Rebekah Brooks at a point-to-point meeting so long as they were not seen together. Meanwhile, the Culture Secretary hides behind a tree so that members of the press do not spot him meeting James Murdoch. That sums up the Government—wrong choices, wrong priorities.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that prior to appearances before the Leveson inquiry, Ministers still have to account for their actions to the House and that the ministerial code still covers them? Following yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, the Institute of Directors said that the Government were beginning to lose the confidence of UK plc, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers complained that there was no industrial strategy, and the British Chambers of Commerce wanted more support for jobs and growth. Even today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph asks, “Why was there no plan for growth?”

Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on the Government’s elusive plan for growth? Slashing employment rights is no substitute for a growth strategy. The Government’s disastrous economic policy has led to massive unemployment, growing inequality and a double-dip recession. The out-of-touch Chancellor thinks that the solution is a huge tax cut for millionaires. A Cabinet Minister says that the Government have no ideas, while a senior Back Bencher says that they have no vision. It is little wonder that, abandoning the No. 10 rose garden, the Prime Minister and his deputy went this week to a factory to relaunch the Government. It was a factory where big blue tractors pulled small yellow trailers. What an apt metaphor for this Government.

[Sir George Young]

Mr Speaker, before I address the issues raised by the hon. Lady, I should say that you will have seen today’s announcement of the death of Lord Glenamara, who, as Ted Short, was Leader of the House from 1974 to 1976—my first two years in the House. He has left his name as the author of Short money, an important constitutional reform that enables Opposition parties better to hold the Government to account. As Leader of the House, he gave the shortest answers at business questions; whatever was asked for, the answer was “not next week”. The answers today may still be the same, but they are at least couched in more user-friendly terms when people ask for a debate.

The local elections did not produce a famous set of results for the governing parties, but if we add together the votes for the two coalition parties, we find that we comprehensively beat the Labour party. The Labour party was, of course, beaten by a monkey in Hartlepool and it did not even put up a candidate in more than 110 wards—the penguin did not even have a chance to beat the Labour party because the Labour party did not stand.

I move on to the Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady complains that there is not much in it; if that is right, I hope that we will have no complaints from her on a Thursday that the Government have not allowed adequate time to debate the legislative programme. If she looks at that programme, she will see that we are addressing a whole range of issues that her party simply ducked when it was in government—energy, electricity market reform, public sector pensions, House of Lords reform, adult care and executive pay. Her side ducked all those policies, but we are now dealing with them.

On high rates of tax, the fact is that for 13 years Labour’s top rate was not 50% or 45%; it was 40%. Labour left us with a legacy of a 50% tax rate that raised no money at all and a letter saying that there was no money left. As a result of the Budget, those earning above £150,000 will pay £1,300 a year more, which means that there will be less pressure on those who are not in the top tax bracket, who will obviously pay less. The question to which we have not had the answer is whether, if Labour Members know that that rate raises very little, they are pledged to reinstate it.

Turning to the question of Ministers, of course Ministers remain subject to the ministerial code, and of course they are accountable to Parliament for the actions that they take.

On growth, if the hon. Lady looks at the Queen’s Speech she will see that it contains some good Bills for businesses. There is an enterprise Bill giving employers more confidence to hire new staff and grow, there are repeals to save businesses time and money, there is a £3 billion green investment bank to stimulate the green economy, and there is an energy Bill delivering long-term, affordable electricity. Also, we have just had the Budget, and the Finance Bill is going through the House at the moment. That is the main vehicle for economic policy rather than the Queen’s Speech. The Budget included cuts to corporation tax, more funding for the Business Finance Partnership, the scrapping of health and safety legislation, investment in technology, and more investment in infrastructure—all in addition to the measures that we announced in the autumn statement last year. Of course there is more administrative action that we can take and will take. We have set our course and we must stick to it. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting higher growth in the UK this year than in Germany, France and the eurozone. I very much hope that we will have the hon. Lady’s support for the measures in the Queen’s Speech, which promote growth in this country.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 30 April—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords], followed by if necessary consideration of Lords Amendments.

Tuesday 1 May—The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his comprehensive statement. I also thank the staff of the House for all the hard work that they have done for Members during the current Session.

In the week of Shakespeare’s birth, we should pay tribute to our greatest dramatist, who has had such an enormous impact on our culture and our language. Looking at the Government, however, I have to say that even Shakespeare could not write a farce like this. Where does one start?

The Culture Secretary came to the House yesterday to try to explain himself. He failed. He said on Tuesday evening that now was not the time for knee-jerk reactions. On Wednesday morning, he kicked out his special adviser. The Culture Secretary may have thrown his aide to the wall, but the ministerial code is crystal clear: the Secretary of State is responsible for the conduct of his special advisers. Will the Leader of the House now answer the following questions, which the Culture Secretary conspicuously failed to answer yesterday?

Was News Corporation informed about the content of a parliamentary statement before that statement was made to the House? Although the Culture Secretary told the House on 3 March that he had published all the exchanges between his Department and News Corporation, the e-mails that were disclosed at the Leveson inquiry demonstrate that he had not done so. That is not a matter for Lord Leveson; it is a matter for the House, and the House needs answers. Far from acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, the Culture Secretary has been acting like a dodgy football ref who not only favours one team, but is in the dressing room with them planning the tactics. Apparently he is at the Tower of London today, awaiting his fate.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister has asked the independent adviser on the ministerial code to investigate the Culture Secretary’s actions, and if not, why not? Will he also tell us whether the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to come to the House to correct the record that he placed in the Library on his meetings with Rupert Murdoch? The Prime Minister recalled just two, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said yesterday, Mr Murdoch revealed to the Leveson inquiry that he had met the Prime Minister more often than that. The Prime Minister apparently “forgets” the majority of his meetings with Rupert Murdoch.

The Prime Minister also said that he had not been involved in “any of the discussions” about News International’s bid for BSkyB, but it now emerges that he did discuss it with James Murdoch—over a cosy Christmas dinner with Rebekah Brooks while the phone-hacking scandal was in full swing. And then there is Raisa the police horse. The Prime Minister could not remember whether he had taken her riding, before finally remembering that he had. We know that this Prime Minister doesn’t do detail, but his lapses of memory are beginning to look a little bit too convenient.

The Public Administration Committee has been examining the leadership that the Prime Minister has given the Government. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read its report? According to the Committee, which is chaired by a distinguished Conservative Back Bencher, there is a “strategic vacuum” at the centre of this Government. The report concludes that the Government’s aims were

“too meaningless to serve any useful purpose”.

Another Conservative Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), has put it even more bluntly. Now that Government Members recognise what Opposition Members have been saying for some time—that this is an incompetent, out-of-touch Government —will the Leader of the House be making time for a debate on the Committee’s report before Prorogation?

The current long parliamentary Session is finally crawling to a close. It began with extravagant boasts by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In June 2010, presenting his first Budget, the Chancellor told the House that by today the economy would have grown by 4.3%. He also told the House that unemployment would peak in 2010 and fall in each subsequent year, and that public sector borrowing would fall each year. Will the Chancellor now be correcting the record?

The economy is back in recession. The Chancellor has presided over the worst performance in our economy for a century. Unemployment is higher than it was when the Government came to power, and they are borrowing £150 billion more than they had planned to borrow. This is a double-dip recession made in Downing street. The Chancellor has bungled his latest Budget just as he has bungled his economic strategy, and hard-working families up and down the country are paying the price.

“The economy is stagnant. The Government is misfiring. The Budget was a shambles. Tory MPs are unhappy. Downing Street is incompetent.”

That is not my assessment; it is the assessment of The Daily Telegraph.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt and for the sake of good parliamentary order, I assume the hon. Lady’s question relating to the details of the conduct of the Culture Secretary and Prime Minister are couched in terms of a request for a statement or debate next week?

[Ms Eagle]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. [Interruption.] I am seeking to clarify the position, and that should be welcomed by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 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 (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 23 April will include:

Monday 23 April—Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill (day 1).



Tuesday 24 April— If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion relating to section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, followed by a motion on an EU directive on data protection in the areas of police and criminal justice, followed by a general debate on the national planning policy framework.

Wednesday 25 April—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Report stage of the Civil Aviation Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.



Thursday 26 April—Consideration of Lords amendments.

The provisional business for the week commencing 30 April will include:



Monday 30 April—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords], followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 26 April will be:

Thursday 26 April—Presentation of a report on the work of the Backbench Business Committee in session 2010-12, followed by a debate on EU working time regulation and the NHS.

[Ms Eagle]

I not only thank the Leader of the House for his statement and congratulate the new Serjeant at Arms on his appointment, but pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, Tony Newton, who has sadly died.

Four weeks ago, the Chancellor made one of his rare appearances at the Dispatch Box to present his Budget, and it has gone down so brilliantly that the Leader of the House is going to find it even more difficult to coax the Chancellor out of hiding and back to the Dispatch Box any time soon. It takes a unique combination of political skills, which only this Chancellor possesses, to unite pie and pasty makers, Church and charity leaders, philanthropists, university vice-chancellors and caravan owners. The Chancellor’s magic touch has now extended to his own Back Benches, because last night nearly 10% of the Conservative parliamentary party voted against their own Government on the Budget.

It is not just the Budget that this Chancellor has bungled. He has made the wrong choices on the economy and the Government have no strategy for growth. While ordinary families are being hammered by soaring fuel, food and housing costs, this part-time Chancellor has chosen to give a huge tax cut to the richest 1%.

One of the first acts of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on coming to office was to give a speech on philanthropy. In it, he announced that the Government would be

“reviewing what it can do to encourage philanthropy across the board”.

You have to say, Mr Speaker, that they have come up with a very novel way of doing it. The Culture Secretary briefed that the Budget process was such a shambles that the Chancellor did not bother speaking to him about the charities tax, and presumably he did not know about the churches tax either. Will the Culture Secretary come to this House and make a statement on that debacle?

Following on from the shambolic Budget, yesterday the Government forced through a tax cut for the richest 1%. Last November, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), the Liberal Democrat leader, said:

“It would be utterly incomprehensible for millions of people who work hard...if suddenly the priority is to give 300,000 people at the very, very top a tax break”.

If it was utterly incomprehensible then, why have Liberal Democrats voted for it now? Will the Leader of the House coax the Deputy Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box to explain his damascene conversion to the interests of the top 1%?

Do the Liberal Democrats seriously think they can get away with agreeing a policy round the Cabinet table, denouncing it in the media, and then voting for it in the House? It is not just on the Budget that they have tried that trick. As the Prime Minister pointed out while on his most recent world tour, the Liberal Democrat leader secretly signed off the policy on internet surveillance in Government and then, when details appeared in the papers, he publically denounced it. A pattern is emerging. Judging by his track record, the Deputy Prime Minster will now ensure that Liberal Democrats vote for the measure while he blames the Tories for it.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrat leader could explain this leaflet, which the party has just put out in Cornwall. It states “Stop the Tories Taxing Our Pasties!” Just five Liberal Democrat MPs voted for Labour’s amendment, and analysis of last night’s result reveals that it was Liberal Democrat votes what won the pasty tax for the Government. May we have a statement on this desperate effort to hoodwink the public? People are not fooled by the Liberal Democrats’ dubious political posturing. The pasty tax, the caravan tax and the churches tax were all voted through the House last night because of Liberal Democrat support.

The part-time Chancellor’s shambolic handling of the Budget is matched by the Home Secretary’s increasingly chaotic attempts to deport Abu Qatada. On the interpretation of time limits, I have to ask, why did no one in the Home Office think to phone up the European Court to check when it thought that the deadline was at an end?

This parliamentary Session is finally staggering to a close, ending a spectacularly mismanaged legislative programme with a spectacularly mismanaged Budget, and we have already started to have leaks about the content of the next Queen’s Speech. The entire Budget was leaked, but the content of the Queen’s Speech should not be briefed to the media before Her Majesty has delivered it.

In his statement, the Leader of the House referred to all the time he has allowed for consideration of Lords amendments next week, but will he take this opportunity to deny rumours that the House will rise much earlier than he is planning?

In an interview this week, the chair of the Conservative party tried to explain away what she herself described as the Government’s “incoherence” with two words “Liberal Democrats”. Can the Leader of the House tell us what on earth she could have meant?

[Sir George Young]

I begin by thanking the hon. Lady for her kind words about Tony Newton, whose funeral I attended last week, where I listened to some generous tributes from John Major and John MacGregor. It was a very well attended and moving funeral.

Let me move on to the hon. Lady’s questions. Most of them related to the Budget; I gently point out to her that we are debating the Budget for the whole of this week and that this time is for questions about next week’s business. All the issues she raised have been the subject of a debate this week or will be the subject of a debate later today. Let me also gently remind the hon. Lady about Budget rebellions. Three weeks ago, an amendment was tabled to the Budget opposing the cut to the 50p tax rate. In other words, it was an amendment that would have implemented the Labour party’s policy. When there was a vote, only two Labour Members voted for it: the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn). They were the only two Members who supported the official Labour party policy. Everyone else, including the hon. Lady, rebelled, so I will take no lectures from her on rebellions on Budget measures.

The hon. Lady raised some points about taxation. She did not mention the 2 million people we are taking out of tax or the 24 million taxpayers who will benefit from the changes we have made. As she knows, the better-off will pay five times more in extra tax than they will get from the reduction in the rate from 50p to 45p.

On the subject of Qatada, we have just had a whole hour of exchanges on Qatada and I hope that the hon. Lady’s colleagues have raised all the questions on that subject that could possibly be raised.

On the legislative Session, I gently remind the hon. Lady that, unlike during the previous Session under the previous Government, we have not rushed through Bills with guillotine after guillotine. We have consistently allowed two days on Report for several Bills, many programme motions have been supported by the Labour party—all credit to Labour for coming to a sensible accommodation—and we have had adequate discussion. I remember the hon. Lady saying that we would not get all the Bills through, but we are getting them all through, with adequate time.

On the hon. Lady’s final question, I have announced that the House will be sitting the week after next and I have announced the business for the Monday. She will understand that at this stage in the parliamentary Session, with four Bills still in play between the two Houses, it is impossible to forecast exactly when the House will prorogue. I anticipate that it will be some time the week after next.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us next week’s business?

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 26 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 27 March—Motion relating to assisted suicide. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. Colleagues should be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday.



The business for the week commencing 16 April will be:

Monday 16 April—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 4) Bill.

Tuesday 17 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Wednesday 18 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 4) Bill (day 1).



Thursday 19 April— Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 4) Bill (day 2).

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 April will include:



Monday 23 April—Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill (day 1).

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.

Last week, I recommended to the Cabinet horses that they could back at the Cheltenham festival. Well, the verdict is in, and I have to announce that I will not be giving up the day job. Palace Jester, the horse that I recommended for the Deputy Prime Minister, was much talked about before the race and entered the field with high expectations, but it failed to live up to its overblown hype—it wilted at the first sign of pressure and ended up nowhere. That just proves that Palace Jester was exactly the right horse for the Deputy Prime Minister.

I have been forced to conclude that I am about as successful at tipping horses as the Chancellor is at managing the economy. Yesterday, the Chancellor made a rare appearance in the House to present his millionaires’ Budget. Although an appearance from him at the Dispatch Box is always a pleasant surprise, the content of the Budget certainly was not.

In future, the Government could dispense with the Budget Red Book altogether and just publish a collection of newspaper clippings; instead of delivering a Budget speech from the Dispatch Box, the Chancellor could just review last week’s papers. Will the Leader of the House undertake to update the House at next business questions on how the leak inquiry is going?

This time last year, the Chancellor said his budget would

“put fuel into the tank of the British economy.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]

Since then, the economy has stalled, unemployment has risen and he is borrowing £150 billion more than he planned. What fuel has the Chancellor been using? After the lamentable record on growth, what was needed yesterday from the Chancellor was a Budget for jobs. Instead, we got a Budget that will be remembered for giving a huge tax cut to the richest 1%.

We were all astonished to learn from the Chancellor this morning that he was not a top rate taxpayer. The hunt is now on for the name of his accountant, who will surely find himself in spectacular demand. Given that the Chancellor has answered the question, surely the rest of the Cabinet should now do so too. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a note to be placed in the House of Commons Library listing which members of the Cabinet have benefited from the cut in the 50p rate?

Yesterday’s ideological Budget gave a £40,000 tax cut to the richest 14,000 people—wrong choice. Yesterday’s Budget introduced a stealth tax on pensioners to pay for that—wrong choice. Cuts to tax credits in April mean that 200,000 households will now be better off on the dole than in work—wrong choice. With VAT increased, fuel duty going up and child benefit cut, this is a Budget that leaves families £253 a year worse off—wrong choice.

It is not just the Government’s choices that are wrong; their entire philosophy is wrong. We now have a Government who believe that the top 1% will work harder if they are given a tax cut while everyone else can be made to work harder only by having their income cut. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that notorious phrase, “We’re all in this together”? I have been trying to understand what the Chancellor could possibly have meant by it, so I looked up the word “all” in the Oxford English Dictionary, which said:

“All (noun): the entire number of; the individual components of, without exception.”

Having scoured the dictionary, I have to report to the House that I could not find a definition that excluded the top 1%, so will the Government be writing to the Oxford English Dictionary to ask it to correct its definition?

Were the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on the phrase, “We’re all in this together”, the Deputy Prime Minister could lead it, because he has claimed that this was a “Robin Hood” Budget. The Deputy Prime Minister had a very expensive education at Westminster school; what did they actually teach him? In my more modest school, we were told that Robin Hood took money from the rich and gave it to the poor, not the other way round. Every time I have asked the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on fairness, he has ignored my request, and now we know why. This was a Budget that was neither fair nor progressive and built unfairness on top of economic policies that have failed. Will the Leader of the House finally find time for a debate on fairness?

This week, Government Members waved their Order Papers for tax cuts for the richest 1% and the Cabinet banged the table when the Health and Social Care Bill was passed. Wrong choices; wrong philosophy; wrong ideology: same old Tories.

[Sir George Young]

It is perhaps unfortunate that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) began by apologising for her tips on horses and then accused us of making all the wrong choices—not a good start. She apologised for her tips; I think she is going to have to start apologising for some of her jokes.

The hon. Lady asked a whole series of questions about the Budget. We have four days’ debate on the Budget. When we come back after the Easter recess, we will have a debate on the Floor of the House on the Finance Bill, and then two more days’ debate on the Finance Bill, as well as a debate on the Financial Services Bill. She asks me for time to debate these issues, but it seems that we are debating very little else over the next week or so. She and her hon. Friends have criticised us for taking a gamble with the Budget, but they took the gamble when they were in government by spending money they did not have and racking up debts that could not be paid.

On the hon. Lady’s comments about fairness, what was fair about selling off the nation’s gold at a record low price? What was fair about giving pensioners an insulting 75p a week increase in the state pension? What was fair about abolishing the 10p tax rate? What was fair about leaving this country with the biggest budget deficit in our history? Labour set back fairness in this country, not the coalition.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us next week’s business?

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

The business for the week commencing 19 March will be:

Monday 19 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the waste water national policy statement.

Tuesday 20 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill.

It may be helpful if I remind colleagues of your statement, Mr Speaker, in which you set out the arrangements for Tuesday 20 March. The House will meet for prayers at 9.45 am and the sitting will then be suspended until 2.30 pm in order to facilitate the attendance of the two Houses on Her Majesty in Westminster Hall for the presentation of Humble Addresses.

Wednesday 21 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 23 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.



The provisional business for the week commencing 26 March will include:

Monday 26 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 27 March—Motion relating to assisted suicide. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues will be aware that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 27 March.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 April will include:

Monday 16 April—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 4) Bill.

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

Thursday 19 April—Debate on regeneration.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Last weekend, the Liberal Democrat spring conference voted against the health Bill. This week, Liberal Democrats in Parliament voted for the health Bill. It could not be clearer: the Liberal Democrat leader now takes his instructions only from the Prime Minister. Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the five Liberal Democrats who defied their leadership and voted against the health Bill? Does he not agree that when the legislation returns to this House next week, the Government must publish the transition risk register, as they have been ordered to by the Information Commissioner? Much better still, the Government should just drop the Bill.

This week at the Leveson inquiry we learned further details about how the deputy Mayor for Policing in London put pressure on the Metropolitan police to drop their investigation into phone hacking. The Met say that they had to remind him that the police are operationally independent of politicians and that operational decisions are taken by police officers, not the Mayor’s political appointees. It is especially worrying when it is a Conservative deputy Mayor pressurising the police on an investigation that involved one of the Prime Minister’s senior aides, Andy Coulson. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement about how such inappropriate interference by the Mayor’s political staff can be stopped?

We now know that the Prime Minister is fond of going horse riding with his old school friends—when they are free. As it is the Cheltenham festival at the moment, may I suggest some horses that Government Members might want to back? As the Prime Minister is conveniently out of the country when unemployment reaches another high, he could back American Spin in the 2.40 today. With the Health Secretary’s career in terminal decline after his disastrous mismanagement of the NHS, his horse is clearly Final Approach. The Education Secretary, who is doing everything he can to undermine the Leveson inquiry, will no doubt want to put his money on Time for Rupert. And the only possible horse for the Deputy Prime Minister is running today in the 2.05: Palace Jester.

The Deputy Prime Minister has been keeping himself busy floating various suggestions for the Budget in the media. Clearly bored with hearing from him, the Chancellor decided to follow Steve Hilton to America. As his economic strategy has unravelled, the Chancellor, rather like the Prime Minister, has been increasingly reluctant to come to the House. Could the Leader of the House confirm that he is actually planning to turn up for the Budget?

I raised last week the Chancellor’s proposals to cut child benefit. The Leader of the House said that the Government’s view was clear. He said the Government’s view was clear three times, but by some strange oversight, he forgot to tell us what the Government’s view actually was. Perhaps the Leader of the House could clear up this issue. Is it fair that a household in which one parent works and earns £43,000 a year will lose child benefit, while a household in which both parents work and take home £84,000 will not? Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on fairness before the Budget? The debate on the Budget within the Government has been a shambles.

Are the Government in favour of a mansion tax or not? The Business Secretary thinks it is a good idea; the Local Government Secretary thinks it is a terrible idea. Conservative Back Benchers want a tax cut for the top 1%; meanwhile, Liberal Democrat Cabinet Ministers and Back Benchers wander around claiming that while the Tories favour tax cuts only for the rich, they themselves do not. The truth is, however, that every member of the Government has voted for Budgets that take the most money from those who have the least.

Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on families? It is families who have been hardest hit by the Government’s Budgets, and what families want from this Budget is not Government in-fighting, but real help now to reduce the squeeze on their living standards and get the economy moving again.

Perhaps, while he is in the United States, the Chancellor might ask why the economy there is growing and unemployment is falling, while in Britain the economy is flatlining and unemployment is rising. The Government's economic strategy is failing, and the Cabinet cannot agree on what to do next. No wonder the Business Secretary thinks that the coalition lacks a “compelling” case, and no wonder the Prime Minister decided that he was better off out of the country on the ides of March, as far away as possible from the Mayor of London.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has taken to warning about Government paralysis. His heart may still be in the coalition, but there is only one horse for Liberal Democrat Back Benchers now. It is running in the 2.05 this afternoon, and it is called Get Me Out Of Here.

[Sir George Young]

We welcome the new career that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is developing as a tipster. It will be interesting to see how well the horses that she has commended to the House actually perform.

The hon. Lady raised—yet again—the subject of the Health and Social Care Bill. It is interesting: we have had three Opposition day debates on the Bill, and I still have not the faintest idea what the Opposition’s policy is on health. Nor, apparently, does the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). He turned up the other day to support the amendment tabled by a Back-Bench Liberal Democrat, but disappeared when the time came to vote on the Labour party’s own motion. Perhaps he had not realised that the negotiations with the Liberal Democrats had ended, some two years ago, in failure. Perhaps he, and indeed the hon. Lady, should heed the wise words of his former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, who wrote today:

“Labour will get back into government by having a better plan for the future, not by opposing changes which are working well.”

[Interruption.] Lord Adonis clearly thinks that they are working well.

The hon. Lady asked about the risk register. As she knows, we are awaiting the detailed judgment of the tribunal before deciding what further action the Government might take.

The police are operationally independent of politicians, and rightly so. The Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box on Monday, when she will be happy to answer questions.

As the hon. Lady may have noticed, the Chancellor will be making a Budget statement on Wednesday. I think that the best thing to do is to put to one side the speculation in the papers about what he may or may not do, and then come along on Wednesday and listen to the real thing.

The hon. Lady mentioned child benefit. Is it fair for someone earning £20,000 a year to pay, through his or her taxes, for the child benefit of someone earning five times as much? That is the question that she needs to address. As for growth, she will be aware that the International Monetary Fund has pointed out that growth in this country this year is three times that in France and twice that in Germany.

Finally, the hon. Lady always obsesses about the relationship between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, but when even The Guardian reports, as it does today, that Labour is in “turmoil”, we know something must be going very badly wrong with the Opposition, and when another report uncovers that morale at Labour HQ is

“even worse than the dark days under Brown”,

we have to wonder how bad it has to get before the hon. Lady stops worrying about the coalition and starts to focus more on the chaos in her own party.

Charging for Access to Parliament

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his persistence in getting this debate and on his passionate advocacy of the position that he has taken. However, I hope that the House will accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the Commission to have another look at the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made the profoundly true observation that we, and all our constituents, are struggling with how to prioritise difficult decisions in tough times, and this is one such example. We are not in an ideal world where perhaps all access to this building could be free, but we have to make the savings that—at the beginning of this Parliament—Mr Speaker, in his role as head of the House of Commons Commission, committed us to making.

It is also important to remember that this issue is about the Clock Tower, not about access to this building in its working sense as a Parliament. Our constituents will still have free access to see their Members of Parliament and to watch proceedings in the Chamber from the Public Gallery, as well as to visit Committees. I for one would not support the amendment if I thought that there would be any slippage in that very important principle. We need to separate the two issues, although I do understand the worries that people have.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I agree with some of the hon. Lady’s basic tenets, but is it not true that as a result of the opaque and antediluvian nature of the Commission and the Management Board, we are effectively held accountable for decisions over which we have had no real, effective or demonstrable say?

[Ms Eagle]

That is a very timely intervention from the hon. Gentleman as I was about to deal with that point, especially as I am a very new member of the House of Commons Commission. I have been in the House for 20 years and always thought that the way in which the House was managed was rather antediluvian and opaque, to put it kindly. I expected when I was given this job that I would dash into the Commission and everything would be revealed. I thought that I would see how the House and all of its domestic Committees worked. I have to confess that after a few months I am still rather of the hon. Gentleman’s view, and light, transparency and more debate about such matters should be organised. We need to think as a Parliament about how we can bring that about.

We are all busy. Doubtless everybody read the e-mails that were sent in 2010 about this issue, but perhaps they did not fully take them in. I therefore have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we should consider how we might ventilate the serious issues that the Management Board has to deal with so that hon. Members on both sides of the House become aware of them in a more timely way. E-mails go out, but we cannot force Members to notice them or read them in detail. The system is antediluvian and lacks transparency, and we might want to think about more modern approaches.

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

One of the points made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is very important. We have the Administration Committee, which I sit on and which has made various recommendations to the Commission that have been overruled without any justification. Surely that is not a transparent or fair system, especially when we are considering cost savings.

[Ms Eagle]

I have considerable sympathy with that point, and perhaps we can all thank the hon. Member for Harlow for bringing this issue to the attention of the House so that we can consider how we might manage the House in a more modern way that brings people along at an earlier stage in the process and ventilates some of the darker, cobwebby areas of the old management systems.

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend talks about Members not necessarily being involved. Does she agree that what seems to be happening more recently is that long-serving and dedicated staff of the Palace—especially at the lower paid level, such as cleaners and others—feel very much that they are taken for granted? They have lost the feeling of being part of a community: they are now part of a tick-box management mentality.

[Ms Eagle]

It is really important that, as these substantial attempts to save large amounts of money happen, we ensure that the pain is felt as much at the top of the structures as it is at the bottom. The only way we can have a savings process with any legitimacy is if everybody involved is affected equally and the pain is not visited most on those at the bottom or those least able to bear it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that we need to look again at the issue of grace and favour apartments, which do seem outdated in the modern age? Does she also agree that we should look at parliamentary outreach and perhaps talk more about parliamentary in-reach? Parliamentary outreach is perhaps better left to the Electoral Commission.

[Ms Eagle]

The House should always modernise the way in which it looks at things. I would be happy to see the Commission look at all of the grace and favour apartments and see what they cost. I assume that the information is available, and it should be ventilated. The House should also think about that issue so that we can have a zero-based look at everything that is done. The way that things have been done in the past is not necessarily the way that they have to be done in the future, especially if they can be done more cheaply, but without taking away our special and important position as a House of Commons, given the job we have to do in holding the Government to account and our independence in doing so. We must facilitate the effectiveness of that work so that we do not have false economies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow on obtaining the debate. I do not feel as strongly about charging for tours of Big Ben as he does, and I hope that the House will support the amendment—so ably moved by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—so that the Commission can have another look at the issue.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—