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

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland]

I am not voting for duplication. I am going to vote for this part of the Bill. I am being informed that legislation is already in place, but I was probably at school at that time. I would love to accept what the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members say, but I am not able to trust them. That is why I am going to vote for this part of the Bill. It is nothing personal. It is just that there has been a lot of discussion going back and forth across the Committee, but I like to vote on the facts, and the facts before me today relate to this part of Bill.

I am sure that the Chairman will be grateful to know that I am about to bring my remarks to a close. We should try to reduce some of the rhetoric. This is not an ideological argument and the provisions are not a massive attack on the trade union movement—nobody wants to see that. Trade union members are fantastic members of our society, and the trade unions have been a fantastic vehicle for societal change throughout the ages. I am happy to work with them on a variety of occasions— working alongside them, for example, at charity events in my constituency or when the national unions work on issues that are important to their members such as fair pay, tax transparency or a range of other issues.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). He declared himself an optimist about the purposes of this part of the Bill and clause 36 in particular. The problem with the Bill, as well as with this particular provision, is the gap between the declared purposes and the provisions themselves. In clause 36, the problem is that the purposes are not clear at all.

In its confused content and its incompetent and chaotic handling, this whole Bill reminds me of a previous piece of legislation that the Leader of the House introduced—the Health and Social Care Bill. I led the opposition to that Bill. It was a Bill without allies and with a remarkable range of critics that saw Lord Tebbit and the trade unions finding common ground. The Leader of House, when he was Health Secretary, was forced to pause, review and reflect upon that Bill. The same problems with this Bill surely call for the same solution.

Let me now deal specifically with clause 36 and the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, told us that his Committee had considered the White Paper, the forerunner of the Bill, and that there had been no mention of part 3 or of trade unions. He said that, according to his calculations, this part of the Bill—including clause 36—had been published the day before the summer recess, eight working days before we were required to consider it in Committee today, and he rightly pointed out that the task of scrutinising these provisions would therefore fall to the other House.

I am not prepared to accept that, and the Committee should not be prepared to accept it either. It is part of our duty in a Committee stage such as this to exercise scrutiny in the House of Commons, but we have been unable to do so. We have been unable to do so because of the time scale, because of the lack of any wider consultation, and indeed, as we have heard this afternoon, because of the Government’s failure to provide the Committee even with some of the most basic documentation before asking it to consider the Bill. Such a degree of confusion and incompetence on the part of Ministers is unacceptable.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s critique of the Bill and, in particular, with what he is saying about clause 36, but is not the position even worse than he is suggesting? The Government have failed to explain to the House why the changes are necessary in the first place. We have not got a clue what problem they are trying to solve.

[John Healey]

I shall respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment. I want my speech to reflect what has been said in the debate so far, and the point that he has made has already begun to emerge during our discussion of clause 36 and the amendments.

Another point has emerged as well, and it constitutes a direct challenge to Ministers. The face of the Bill bears the following declaration from the Leader of the House:

“In my view the provisions of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”

Members of Parliament and legal experts outside the House have rightly asked whether article 8 of the convention, in particular, is not confounded by the provisions of clause 36. The clause gives the certification officer, or any investigator whom he may appoint, sweeping powers of access to very personal individual information about trade union members, which could contravene article 8 and the right to privacy. As I think the Committee will appreciate, union members are rightly concerned and sensitive about the issue, given the recent history of blacklisting and discrimination on the basis of trade union membership or activity. What I should like the Minister to do when he responds to the debate—

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

She.

[John Healey]

What I should like the Minister to do when she responds to the debate is give the Committee a commitment that she will publish, or place in the Library of the House, the legal advice on which the Leader of the House’s statement on the front of the Bill is based, so that we can lay that concern to rest.

Let me now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked what was the problem with which clause 36, and part 3 as a whole, had been designed to deal. Even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) rightly asked the same question, albeit in different terms. He asked what intention was behind the provisions in clause 36. Our debate so far has clearly shown that there is no evidence of a problem, that there is no public call for these changes, and that there is no principled case for them. We can only conclude that the intention, or the purpose, of the clause is to tighten the legislative leash on trade unions and their ability to take proper, lawful industrial action.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I hope the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will not stray too far down that road, and will return to the subject of the clause and amendments. He has performed very skilfully so far.

[John Healey]

Indeed so, Sir Edward.

As a former member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps, linked to the clause, that any union needs to take before contemplating industrial action are already highly complex. They are legally specified, and they set a number of very high hurdles for any group of trade union members who wish to consider industrial action. As for his general point, it is often the determination of union members to take industrial action if necessary, and as a last resort, that causes employers to see sense, negotiate properly and, in many cases, solve the problems at hand.

Let me sum up the position. The number of days lost to strike action is at a near all-time low. Industrial action is always a last resort. The series of legislative steps that any group of trade union members must take before engaging in lawful industrial action are already highly complex, lengthy and tightly specified in law, but clause 36 will make that specification much tighter, and will make it much more difficult for unions to take such action. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, there is no legal right to strike in this country, and any industrial action lays a trade union open to being sued for inducing and encouraging members to breach their employment contracts. It is only the immunity from being sued, which comes from following all the steps specified in existing legislation, that will be made more difficult by the provisions in clause 36.

Too often in recent years, employers—not just large employers such as Balfour Beatty, Serco and London Midland—instead of dealing with the grievance at hand, and instead of consulting, negotiating and discussing the problems that they face with their own employees and dealing with the dispute, have looked for legal ground to try to prevent any industrial action through the law courts. The duty in clause 36 to provide the membership audits and certificates, and the potential investigations on the back of any complaints under the auspices of the certification officer, are likely to make it much easier for employers to find legal grounds and to take legal action to prevent union members from taking proper, legitimate industrial action. Clause 36 will create a mountain of data and paperwork which will be at the fingertips of employers well in advance of any particular risk of industrial action or dispute.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Is that not exactly what the Government intend, so that, apart from causing financial difficulties, this Bill can be used by employers to hit out at employees?

[John Healey]

I think my hon. Friend is right, but our problem is that we are having to intuit the intention behind these provisions and this clause because the Government have not supplied evidence of a problem, have not supplied a purpose for these provisions, and have not supplied any reason for this unreasonable tightening of the legislation.

[John Cryer]

My right hon. Friend talked about legal action being taken against trade unions. The other problem is that an employer has six years in which to take that legal action. I can remember dealing with cases where a legal firm said, “Let the ballot and industrial action go ahead because we then have six years during which, at any point, we can take legal action against the union.”

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend has more experience in this area than I have, and he is right to point that out, and he might have gone on to say, “And what a stark disparity with the legal requirements on trade unions to take any industrial action they may have balloted upon within days, not years, and then to give further fresh notice to the employer before the start of that industrial action.” The legislation is already hugely unbalanced and is, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued, ripe for reform—although I think he and I would disagree on the nature of the reform that is required.

The Opposition’s arguments against this clause and my particular objections are clear, and our amendments highlight them. Regardless of what the Government are prepared to say about its purpose now, it is designed to tighten the current legislation binding trade unions. It is designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to take proper legal, legitimate industrial action and in particular for members facing problems in their workplace to stand up to an employer as a last resort and say, “You’re treating us in such an unfair, discriminatory and unacceptable way that we are prepared to take industrial action as a last resort.” If we allow this provision and this part of the Bill to proceed unamended it will become much more difficult for ordinary people as union members in the workplace to stand up for themselves through their union against their employer.

[Mr McKenzie]

I will restrict my remarks to clause 36 and to supporting our amendments. As we have heard over the past few days, this is a bad Bill and it would be poor legislation. Part 3 and clause 36 have clearly been ill thought out and ill conceived by the Government—but they have clearly thought through what they want to achieve. These measures would achieve their goals, but, unfortunately, they are not the goals a lobbying Bill should set out to achieve.

To compound things, this Bill is being rushed through Parliament at a speed that would make Usain Bolt envious. Opposition Members repeatedly ask, “Why the hurry? Why can’t we take a bit of time to scrutinise this Bill and get it right?” There has been no consultation on the Bill either, which has been highlighted.

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

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was about to say that I hope the proposals find favour in the eyes of the Government and that they accept them. If he is saying that the Government accept the principle behind the proposals and would like to introduce on Report an amendment that does the same thing, it would be extremely churlish of me not to accept it.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and his attempts to amend clause 26, but Opposition Members have a lot of experience of the gap between what Ministers say and what they do. The clause is a noose around the neck of democratic election debate. It gags those who have a passion to play a part in challenging politicians, and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is a curb on the campaigning activities of trade unions, charities, Churches and others. If the Minister produces amendments on Report that do not do what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want, will he vote against them?

[John Thurso]

I remember having very happy intercourse with the right hon. Gentleman when he was at the Dispatch Box, so I will maintain my benign view and wait to see the outcome before making any such decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, with which I agree wholeheartedly. I do not think that the main problem we have with our political system is over-participation; we need to be encouraging more people to participate, and that is exactly what is done by third-party organisations, such as the non-governmental organisations, the community groups—

[John Healey]

And the trade unions.

[Caroline Lucas]

Indeed.

The fundamental principle at issue today is the right of citizens to express their views and argue for or against a particular policy, and to do so by joining with others who share their concerns. It is that combination of the people who come together that we need to protect. We must not rush into changes that could make a bad situation worse when it comes to public engagement with the democratic process and elections. We need an even-handed and thorough review of the current rules. Like others, I am looking forward to seeing the details of the Government’s concession, but there is a real fear that even if their changes do what they claim they will, this Bill will still impose a dangerously anti-democratic chilling effect on legitimate voices seeking to raise awareness and stimulate debate on issues of crucial public interest, be it NHS reform, fuel poverty, housing policy or wildlife conservation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making a set of important points about process rather than principle, which is what he normally covers, and they are extremely valuable. Does he agree, in asking ask the Minister to set out the principles on which his proposed changes for introduction on Report will be based, that they should be principles for how he wants to change the status quo rather than how he wants to tinker with the Bill’s deeply flawed provisions?

[John McDonnell]

The reason I want some general principles set out is that I, like many others, am completely confused about where we are at—what the Government’s intentions are, and the implications of the Bill. I have spoken three times in the series of debates starting with Second Reading, so I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have advanced, but I think that people are genuinely confused. If we arrive in this place on 8 October without that full process, people will be equally confused, and either we shall be faced with a rush to pass bad legislation, or, if we have unfortunately failed to reach consensus, people outside this place will—let us put it this way—not hold us in the regard in which we should be held on something like this.

I make this plea to the Minister: at least get some clarity today before we move forward. It is fortuitous that we have the conference break; that gives us the opportunity to get that right and to be fully inclusive in the process from here on in.

--- Later in debate ---

Not only would those organisations be less inclined to get involved in the work that is so vital to us, but the net would be flung far wider and bring in far more organisations, some of which are user groups, local groups, that have far less experience of such activity. For many of them, it would be much more practical to provide clarification of existing Charity Commission law and Electoral Commission advice, so that—

[John Healey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the great and the good of the charity sector—groups of the type that she has been talking to—that would be affected? Has she, like me and many other Members, been contacted by a lot of constituents who see very clearly the dangers to the democratic process—constituents like Dr Kathryn Horridge from Rawmarsh, who said:

“I support greater transparency and accountability in the political process, and would like to see the influence of ‘Big Money’ over politics reduced. I’d support a new law which genuinely did this, rather than a law which gags campaign groups but leaves Rupert Murdoch and millionaire party donors untouched”?

[Nia Griffith]

My right hon. Friend made that point extremely well. Many people’s first political engagement may come about when they join a campaign on an issue that they feel strongly about, and to curtail that would discourage participation when we all recognise that the real challenge today is to get more participation and enable more people to have a voice in our society.

Another issue that will hit people very hard is the reduction of the financial limit in Wales. That will be £2,000, and there will be a requirement to declare many additional costs, such as staffing costs.

Business of the House

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that many people across the country would agree with him.

Notwithstanding what I read in the newspapers this morning, in my experience it is often general practitioners who say that the situation is absurd. I recall a GP speaking to me—forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I tell a little story—about the American and Japanese students who registered at her practice. After a while, they would go to see her when they were leaving and say, “Shall I talk to the receptionist about payment?” She had to say, “There is no payment.” They looked at her as if we were mad because at home they would have paid and they had insurance and were willing to pay. However, because of the structure of the legislation, the national health service said, “You are ordinarily resident here so it is free. End of story.” That is absurd. The students did not expect it and we should not have got into that position. We need to deal with that. The issue is not always abuse. This is a system that should be tightened up.

I anticipate that the measures to which my hon. Friend refers will be part of an immigration Bill later in the Session.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is humiliating for the Leader of the House to have to defend such a light legislative programme and a coalition Government who have all but run out of road on which they can agree to travel together. He will know that for more than a year I have highlighted a problem for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which does not have the same powers as other professional regulators to review and revise its disciplinary decisions. Given that there is so little legislation before the House this year, will he help find time for a small but important legal change to deal with that problem?

HEALTH

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on a particularly important topic, in which the Minister shares an interest, as we are neighbours. First, I wish to thank our front-line staff in the ambulance service, our paramedics, who work very hard. I also thank our volunteers, the community first responders, who do a great job and genuinely participate in helping to save lives in our communities. That is particularly important in the shires, as reaching someone in just a few minutes to provide life-saving treatment is crucial. I thank those people who give up their time.

A reorganisation is taking place in the east of England ambulance service, and I know that that is a concern to staff, who feel that patients will not get the treatment that they deserve. Change is always unsettling, but I genuinely believe that the management are trying to do this for the best reasons. One of the things we need to keep ensuring is that patient safety is the key priority.

The east of England ambulance service is hitting its targets—it has a regional target. Given that our region is so vast, it is no surprise that by focusing on certain cities it is relatively straightforward to hit targets. However, when we break down the performance by county, we start to see a very different story. I know that my colleagues from Suffolk and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) have long been campaigning on that issue to try to raise it up the agenda, and it is vital that we do so. The presence of a new interim chief executive may start to help us to tackle that. We need to work hard to keep the chair and the board of the ambulance service on their toes, so that they recognise that saying that they have hit a regional target does not mean that the issue will go away—it will not.

One of the things I call on the board to do is think carefully about its responses to Members of Parliament when we are asking for greater transparency on performance. Belatedly—I am pleased that it has done this—there is an agreement that it will start to publish county by county performance details on a monthly basis. I believe that the board should and can go further. We already know that it provides performance data by postcode to the primary care trusts, and I believe those data should be published—they should certainly be available. Instead of getting into freedom of information exchanges, we need to ensure that, in line with what Sir David Nicholson told the Public Accounts Committee, every Member of Parliament should be able to get access to the data they need easily in order to monitor what is happening for their constituents and not be caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. As we all know, sunlight often brings a change in performance. Somebody trying to get to a village such as Shingle Street finds that it takes 10 minutes to get there just from the main road. When I say “main road” I am referring to a single track road. I recognise that not everybody will be able to do that, but it is still important that we try to get the postcode data published.

Earlier this year, after a successful meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), a Health Minister at the time, I was under the impression that there would be a contract with the county performance targets built into it. Indeed, that was important for the paying of bonuses. Disappointingly, the contract that was agreed with the ambulance service by the person agreeing it on behalf of the primary care trusts in the east of England contained an added caveat about hospital handover times. We know that that is an issue, but another thing that Members of Parliament are doing is putting the spotlight on where there are those problems as well. Ultimately, we want the best ambulance service for our patients. We should not have to put up with sub-standard performance simply because the county is rural.

One disappointing thing about the contract, from which we expected so much, was that there seemed to be a lot of wriggle room. The new interim chief executive knows that well, as he negotiated the contract on behalf of the primary care trusts. He knows the issues our ambulance services face and I shall press him to ensure that the contracts this time make it clear what percentage of people in Suffolk should expect to see an ambulance within the regulated time.

Another thing that went wrong was the complaints process, although I am delighted that the chair of the ambulance trust has fixed that. I pay tribute to her and her staff for sorting that out. All these problems together have led me to voice my opposition—I will continue to do so—to the trust’s being allowed to have foundation status before a quality service is delivered consistently across the region. Simply placing ambulances close to Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich, Luton and so on—near the big conurbations—is not fair on our rural areas. I point those people who say, “Well, it is a rural area,” to the example of the north-west. Cumbria has very similar characteristics as a pretty rural area with some big towns, yet the service there manages consistently to hit its targets.

Is there light at the end of the tunnel? I hope so. It is clear that MPs from Suffolk and across the east of England will not let up on the issue and I hope that we will have a step change in performance when we meet again in February.

Health care is very important to the people of Suffolk, but I also want to take this opportunity to thank my staff for all the hard work they have done in the last year. They have been extraordinary in helping my constituents tackle all sorts of issues and have also been very helpful this week, as we have sent out a mailshot of nearly 4,000 letters on Sizewell C—another issue that I share with my hon. Friend the Minister—and the impact that could have in the future. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you a happy Christmas.

John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)

- Hansard -

I wish to take the unusual step of telling the House and the Minister about the individual case of little Vinny Duggan to highlight a wider problem that the Government can solve by making legal changes so that other patients and other parents such as Andy and Andrea Duggan do not have to go through what this family has gone through in the past two and a half years. As Andrea has said to me, this is their fight, but it is also a fight for other people in their position.

I have been involved with the parents in the quest for information for only 10 months, whereas Mr and Mrs Duggan have been battling since Vinny was born nearly two and half years ago. At times, Vinny has fought for life. He is now a little lad who is full of life. I was with the family on Saturday, and he was smiling, laughing, climbing on the sofa and climbing on me, but he has a very serious congenital heart and lung condition. He has brain damage, likely to have been caused by a lack of oxygen, and he is unlikely ever to be able to speak. His parents have told me that they are very proud of Vinny and very grateful that they still have him here.

It has been touch and go at times. He was born on 20 August 2010 at Doncaster royal infirmary. He was full term and was a healthy 7 lb 9 oz. However, within the first day his mum, in particular, became concerned that he was very blue, that he was not feeding properly and that he was very sleepy. The following day, he was diagnosed with a heart murmur and the day after that he was discharged against the parents’ wishes, as they were concerned and wanted tests done before he was discharged. He was at home for two days and after that time, when he had not properly woken up or properly fed and had stopped wetting his nappies, they phoned the hospital and were advised to take him to the children’s observational unit, where they arrived at 7 o’clock that evening.

Within the first hour, they were assessed by a triage nurse as non-urgent—green, in other words—and had to wait almost another five hours before a doctor saw them. During that night, Vinny was put on a heart monitor and given the tests he needed. He had a very high heart rate and was transferred rapidly to the specialist unit at Leeds general infirmary. He was diagnosed as having a very serious life-threatening heart and lung condition. He was given open heart and major lung surgery and spent five months in Leeds hospital, six weeks of that in intensive care and 10 weeks in the high-dependency unit.

The internal investigation at Doncaster hospital afterwards concluded that there were “no real concerns” about the standard of care in Vinny’s case, despite the fact that there were many chances to notice that he was unwell, to do the tests that could have been required and to listen to Mr and Mrs Duggan’s concerns. There remain important discrepancies between the evidence of the parents and that of some of the staff and the hospital in the investigation. It took two years and a new chief executive before, six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Duggan received a welcome letter from the new acting chief executive, Mike Pinkerton, who ended by saying:

“The care that Vinny received fell below the standard you have a right to expect from us and I do sincerely apologise.”

Like so many other parents, Mr and Mrs Duggan had principally wanted an explanation—not retribution or compensation. However, like many parents, they were driven down the route of trying to get answers through the courts, and that is what they are having to do. They also rightly turned to the professional body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is responsible for regulating Britain’s 670,000 nurses and midwives. Mrs Duggan submitted a complaint in September 2011, which was turned down in January 2012. She challenged it, which caused the council to look again at the argument that there was no case to answer, and the internal review concluded that the case should be referred back to the investigating committee for reconsideration.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, however, has limited powers to review its decisions and that has been reinforced and restricted further by a High Court judgment in May in the case of R(B) v. NMC 2012. In other words, the NMC does not have the legal powers it needs to review its own decisions. The chief executive, Jackie Smith, was good enough to meet me in the summer and to agree to commission independent legal advice on Vinny’s case and on the NMC’s restrictions. That independent legal advice came from Mark Shaw QC, who concluded:

“The Order and Rules makes it plain that the NMC has no statutory power to review, re-open or reverse a disciplinary decision (in particular, a decision of the Investigating Committee that a registrant has no case to answer) beyond the specific circumstances stipulated in rule 7, namely: receipt of a fresh allegation within three years of the dismissal of a previous allegation against the same registrant.”

He went on to point out:

“Typically, other professional regulators have wider review powers, granted explicitly by secondary legislation.”

Those other professional bodies include the General Medical Council, which is responsible for regulating Britain’s 250,000 registered doctors. The GMC’s powers were rightly extended in 2004, so it has the power to review and reopen a complaint, to take a view that its earlier decisions might be flawed, to take new evidence into account and to act. It is considering a review of the complaint lodged with it about a doctor involved in this case and we expect a decision imminently.

The General Optical Council and the General Pharmaceutical Council have similar powers; the General Dental Council does not. At a time when complaints from patients are rising and pressures on staff are increasing, if we are to maintain trust and confidence in our health professionals and the NHS, we must have a better and more open system of complaints and we must have regulators with the powers to do the job they are set up to do: safeguard professional standards and safeguard patients and the public, too.

I know the Law Commission is reviewing the common enabling legislative framework for all health regulators. That could take three years, so I want the Minister to confirm today that he knows that there is a problem and that in the meantime, in advance of the Law Commission’s report, he will act to change the operating rules and orders so that those professional bodies can do the job. Otherwise, many other patients and parents will face the same fight for the truth—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Order.

Business of the House

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

In his big red file, does the Leader of the House have a copy of every one of the 28 written ministerial statements tabled today, including the one confirming that the Government are cutting funding for further education courses for older students, which will mean that those over 24 will have to pay up to £4,000 a year at a time when they are worried about jobs, debt and how to pay the bills? It has been tabled, with the regulations, just three days before the summer recess, preventing this House from properly challenging this big change. Will he make time for a debate on the change in this Chamber?

[Sir George Young]

There is an Opposition day on Monday, when the Opposition could have chosen this subject for debate. I have looked through the written ministerial statements. I saw one from the same Minister, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, about extending loans to students aged over 24, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome.

Business of the House

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The issue of who will chair a Joint Committee, if it is set up, would be a matter for that Committee. The hon. Gentleman will be able to see the motions when they appear on the Order Paper, and they will include the two alternatives: the inquiry that has been proposed by the Opposition, and the Joint Committee that has been proposed by the Government. They will both be put before the House.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House’s statement makes it clear that the Government are going to ever greater lengths to avoid a full judge-led inquiry. By the time this House votes at 5.15 pm on Thursday, the Treasury Committee will have held three sessions on the LIBOR scandal, and it is also halfway through an inquiry into governance in the banking industry. If the Leader of the House wants Parliament to do the job, why not let the Select Committee do it, instead of involving the Lords?

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman has begun to engage in a debate that might take place on Thursday, but it goes slightly beyond the scope of the business statement. I hope that in the debate members of the Treasury Committee—including, perhaps, the Chair of the Committee—might express their views on the proposition we will have put before the House.

Business of the House

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity in the debate on the Budget to draw attention to the benefits of enterprise zones. We announced some 24 enterprise zones with the specific objective of generating employment in the areas that needed it, and I am delighted to hear of the impact of the EZ in his constituency, and of the extra jobs being created. I hope that many more will be created on the back of the ones already in existence.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Information Tribunal meets today to consider its decision on the Government’s appeal against releasing the risk register for their huge NHS upheaval, which I requested back in November 2010. Will he confirm that, if the Government lose, they will respect the law and release the register? Will he also confirm that the House will not be asked to consider Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill without the benefit of that important information?

[Sir George Young]

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that last point, because I do not know when the tribunal will deliver its ruling. The Bill is scheduled to have its Third Reading in another place on, I think, 19 March, and we would then hope to deal with it here, so I cannot give him that particular undertaking. I hope that he will understand, however, that it is important for Ministers to be able to consider policy options, and to get frank advice from civil servants on their impact, without those options going into the public domain. We need sufficient space to develop our thinking and our policy options, which is why the Government opposed the right hon. Gentleman’s application. We will have to wait and see what the tribunal ruling comes up with.

Points of Order

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, this House was asked to debate, amend and agree the Health and Social Care Bill. We were asked to scrutinise that legislation with no updated information on the costs and consequences of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history, because the Government had promised a new impact assessment but had not published it before the debate. It was then smuggled out with no press statement the very next day and it shows that savings are planned at £2 billion less, it shows that the new economic regulator, Monitor, is set to have 600 staff at an average cost of £84,000 each and, most importantly to this House, on page three it shows that the Minister signed it off on 1 September, a full five days before the debate in this House. It is a disgrace that these facts were kept hidden from the House and the public before such a critical and controversial debate. In the light of page 447 of “Erskine May”, can you advise this House whether the Government have followed the proper parliamentary procedure and of what steps can be taken to stop such abuse in the future?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He has made his point and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. Although the release of such information is a matter for the Government rather than for the Chair, I can tell him and the House that I do attach importance to the timely provision of information to the House, which is both courteous to Members and helpful in their deliberations. It is fortunate for the right hon. Gentleman and the House that at the time of his raising his point of order—this may not be a coincidence—the Leader of the House was sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Leader of the House is as courteous a man as is to be found on either side of the Chamber; he attaches importance to these matters and though he may not wish to respond to the point of order now, I can assure the House that he will have heard it.